HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 144B; SDG&E Wastewater Facility; Specific Plan (SP) (9)I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared by
• San Diego County
Air Pollution Control Disrict
I
_ Transportation Element provided by
• San Diego Association of Governments
I
I
DRAFT
1981 ANNUAL REPORT
REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
VOLUME II
A progress report on the implementation actions
taken to achieve and maintain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in the San Diego Air Basin.
MAY 1981
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Appendices
Preface
CHAPTER I EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND DATA BASE
A. Introduction
B. Mobile Sources
Table I-A - Summary of the 1978 Emissions
Inventory
Table I-B - Comparison of 1978 Actual vs.
Projected Emissions Inventory
Figure 1.1 - 1980 Emissions Inventory Pie
Chart for RHC and CO
C. Result of 1978 Emissions Inventory for
Point and Area Sources
D. 1982 SIP Ozone Modeling Requirements
E. Improvements in 1978 Baseyear Inventory
CHAPTER II DETAILED RFP ASSESSMENT/CONTROL MEASURE STATUS
A. Stationary (Point & Area) Controls
Implemented CY 1980
B. Mobile Source Controls Implemented CY 1980
C. Transportation Tactics RFP Assessment
CHAPTER III QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF REASONABLE FURTHER
PROGRESS
CHAPTER IV STATUS OF ACTIONS REQUIRED BY 79 SIP
A. Stationary Source Rule Adoption, 1980
Table 1.1 - Progress Toward Implementation
of the R-RAQS/SIP Ozone Strategy
Table 1.2 - T-Tactic RFP Summary, 1980
B. Mobile Source Rule/Resolution Adoption
Table IV-A - Proposed Stricter Vehicular
Controls from Revised RAQS
Table IV-B - Comparison of I/M Benefits
Page
ii
iv
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
I -11
1-12
1-13
1-13
1-14
II-l
II-l
II-6
II-7
III-l
IV-1
IV-1
IV -2
IV -3
IV -7
IV -8
IV-11
C. Products and Actions Required by EPA Conditional
Approval
D. Pilot or Demonstration Projects
CHAPTER V EFFECT OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW RULE IN CY 1980
CHAPTER VI PUBLIC INPUT
IV-12
IV -12
V-l
VI -1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
1
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
Table A-l
Table A-2
Table A-3
Table A-4
Table A-5
APPENDIX B
PI
P2
P3
P4.01
' P4.02
P4.03
P4.04
P4.05
P4.06
P4.07
P4.08
P8a
P8b
P21
P23
P24
P25
M24
APPENDIX C
45 FR 48941
46 FR 7182
46 FR 21749
46 FR 25324
-IT-
LIST OF APPENDICES
EMISSIONS TABLES
Reactive Hydrocarbon Emission Trends (1981 RFP Revision)
Reactive Hydrocarbon Emissions Estimates - Industrial
Surface Coatings
Reactive Hydrocarbon Emissions - R-RAQS/79 SIP Control
Level (1981 RFP Revision)
Carbon Monoxide Emission Trends (1981 RFP Revision)
Carbon Monoxide Emissions - R-RAQS/79 SIP Control levels
(1981 RFP Revision)
TACTIC REEVALUATION WORKSHEETS
Dry Cleaning
Organic Compound Surface Cleaners
Architectural Coatings
General Metal Parts & Products
Can & Coil Coatings
Paper & Fabric Coatings
Auto Refinishings
Wood Furniture
Aerospace Coatings
Graphic Printing
Other Special Coatings
Fixed & Floating Roof Gasoline Storage
Gasoline Marketing & Transfer
Dry Cleaning (Perchloroethylene)
Marine Coatings
Cutback Asphalt
Chemical Products Manufacturing
Maximum Inspection & Maintenance
FEDERAL REGISTERS
Air Quality; Clarification of Agency Policy Conerning
Ozone SIP Revision and Solvent Reactivities (July 22,
1980)
State Implementation Plans; Approval of 1982 Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an
Attainment Date Extension (January 22, 1981)
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; San
Diego Air Basin Nonattainment Area Plan (April 4, 1981)
Air Quality Planning Purposes; Designation of Areas:
Nevada and California (May 6, 1981)
I
I
I
-m -•
LIST OF APPENDICES - continued
APPENDIX D Allowable Emissions Ozone Conclusions
APPENDIX E Series IV - Series V Comparative Emissions Analysis
Activity Indicators
• APPENDIX F Rubenstein to Sommerville Letter, April 1, 1981
APPENDIX G Sommerville to Lockett Letter, March 17, 1980
I APPENDIX H Air Resources Board, Resolution 79-8, February 21, 1979
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-iv-
PREFACE
In Volume I the term Strategy is used synonymously with the terms 79 SIP
and Revised RAQS, which are used in Volume II. The Revised Regional Air
Quality Strategy (Revised RAQS) is used to refer to the Strategy which was
adopted locally in 1978. 79 SIP refers to the collection of control mea-
sures which were adopted by the California Air Resources Board after its
review of the Revised RAQS. The 79 SIP was then forwarded to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency as the San Diego portion of the 1979 State Imple-
mentation Plan (79 SIP) as required by the Clean Air Act.
Volume I of the 1981 Annual Report of Reasonable Further Progress (81 RFP)
summarizes for the public the basic actions taken during calendar year 1980
toward achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the
required dates. Volume II provides the detailed documentation to substan-
tiate the assessment of progress.
Volume II is organized into six chapters and several appendices. Chapter
I, Emission Inventory & Data Base details the progress of the Air Pollution
Control District in finalizing a comprehensive, current and accurate
regional emission inventory to serve as the baseline for the required 1982
SIP revision. The actual 1978 Emission Inventory, which has been set as
the baseline inventory, is presented and compared category by category with
1978 emission values predicted in the 1979 SIP revision. The process used
to develop this inventory is briefly described.
Chapter II, Control Measure Detailed RFP Assessment, details the emission
reductions occurring in calendar year (CY) 1980 from the implementation of
the stationary source control measures committed to in the 79 SIP. It also
discusses mobile and transportation control measure implementation pro-
gress. Chapter III, Qualitative Discussion of Reasonable Further Progress,
includes air quality monitored data.Chapter IV, Status of Actions and
Products Required in 1979 SIP, discusses the progress made by the APCD and
SANDAG in implementing the actions called for in the 79 SIP. Chapter V,
Status of NSR and Offsets, discusses the applications of New Source Review
Rule (NSR) and Offsets.Chapter VI, Public Review, documents the availa-
bility of the report for review and public comment and discusses the public
input process. The appendices contain the tables and documents pursuant to
the preceding chapters.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER I
EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND DATA BASE
INTRODUCTION
Reasonable further progress in attaining the National Ambient Air .Quality
Standards is assessed by the annual emission decreases from the base year
to the attainment year. Since air quality is very sensitive to meteorolo-
gical variables from year to year, the predominant criteria for demon-
strating progress in the near term continues to be the annual emission
reductions. Thus the importance of obtaining accurate, up-to-date, compre-
hensive emission inventories has increased. Air pollutant emission inven-
torying is an evolving process reliant on the accuracy of emission factors,
throughput values, surrogate measurements, populations, activity levels,
growth projections, control efficiencies, timing of implementation, etc.
San Diego's first emission inventory was done from the year 1972 and the
first comprehensive inventory was prepared for 1975 as the baseyear for the
1979 SIP (Revised RAQS). The Revised RAQS used the regionally adopted
population projections Series IVb to predict emission levels in the
attainment years, (1982 for TSP and NOx) and (1987 for 0., and CO). In a
relatively rapidly growing region such as San Diego the accuracy of these
forecasts become particularly important.
In the preparation of plans one consistent set of populations, vehicle
miles travelled (VMT), vehicle trips, employment levels and other para-
meters aggregated by year must be used. Every two years the population
projections are revised, but the regional adoption process can be time
consuming (up to two years). SIP's are required to use adopted population
projections in order to be consistent with other planning processes, e.g.,
the Water Quality 208 and 201 Plans and Transportation Plans.
After the San Diego 1979 SIP revision was locally adopted in 1978 a new set
of population projections (Series-V) were developed and adopted by most
of the local land use jurisdictions as of this writing. However, RFP is
measured as the progress in attaining the air standards using the emission
levels and population projections in the approved and adopted plan, in this
case the 1979 SIP. Thus this 1981 RFP report uses Series IVb population,
employment and transportation projections. It should be realized that to
retain continuity of analysis, the same set of growth factors need to be
used until the whole plan is revised, as it is scheduled to be by late 1981
or early 1982 as the required 1982 SIP revision.
For the 1981 RFP Report the just completed 1978 Baseyear Comprehensive
Emission Inventory (see Table I-A) was compared to the 1978 projected level
for the stationary point and area sources (see Table I-B). The totals from
the actual 1978 Inventory was 140 tons/day reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) a
precursor of ozone whereas the projected 1978 value was 135 tons/day. The
difference of 5 tons/day may be partially accounted for by the 5 tons/day
from the newly added category #148 Domestic Solvent Usage. The new 1978
Inventory point and area source values were used to project future years
1-2
with reassessed control effectiveness using Series IVb growth projections
for this RFP Report. The 1978 Mobile Sources Inventory totals were 167 •
tons/day RHC compared to the predicted 135 tons/day from the Revised RAQS.
The causes of the mobile sources differences are discussed in the following
section.
I
I
I
I
B. MOBILE SOURCES
Estimated emissions of on-road motor vehicle portion of the mobile source p
category in the Revised RAQS was based on emission factors derived from the
ARB computer program entitled EMFAC 5 and activity indicators for vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), trips, and vehicle population for the cordon area •
(western 2/3) of the county. EPA, in reviewing San Diego's 79 SIP submit- •
tal, required a reanalysis of the motor vehicle section based on county
wide motor vehicle activity indicators (A.I.) instead of the cordon area •
A.I.'s. This revision was required since the entire county of San Diego |
was designated a nonattainment area for ozone.
Recently, the ARB staff has revised the EMFAC 5 Program to EMFAC 6C to •
reflect current data obtained from on-going EPA and ARB surveillance and •
testing programs. EMFAC 6C is significantly different from EMFAC 5. One
of the objectives of the RFP Report is to address the impact of signifi- •
cant changes to the Data Base. |
Accordingly, the EMFAC 6C emission factor estimates were used by the Dis- g
trict to calculate on-road motor vehicle emissions. The activity indica- •
tors used in the 1981 RFP Report for on-road motor vehicles continue to be *
the up-dated Series IVb indicators as supplied by SANDAG.
I"
light-duty auto (IDA), light-duty trucks (LOT), and medium-duty vehicles
(MDV). Previous emission estimates were under-estimating diurnal emissions m
as-much-as 68% for LDA, LOT and MDV, and Hot Soak emissions by 27% for LDA •
and LOT. The exhaust total hydrocarbons (THC) emission factors also *
increased approximately 15% for light-duty trucks and medium-duty
vehicles. •
Carbon monoxide (CO) emission factors for LDA, LOT and MDV increased
approximately 9%, while the emission factors were decreased 46% for Heavy m
Duty Gasoline (HDG), 169% for Heavy Duty Diesel (HDD) and 153% for Motor- •
cycles (MC). Even though there were significant decreases in HDG, HDD, MC *
emission factors, these combined categories account for less than 5% of the
VMT for the region. •
A comparison of mobile source emission estimates in the 1981 RFP Report was
made with the previously prepared 1980 RFP Report. The Emission Estimates «
for all on-road mobile sources increased by 12% THC and decreased by 4% for I
CO in 1980. ™
I
I
TABLF I-A Page 1 of 8
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
CATEG
#
101
102
103
104
105
106
MOBILE EMISSION SOURCES
Commercial Aviation
(Exhaust)
General Aviation
(Exhaust)
General Aviation
(Evap.)
Military Aviation
(Exhaust)
Railroads
Ships/Boats
VEHICULAR ON-ROAD
107
108
109
no
111
112
113
114
LDA Cold/Hot Start
LDA Running Exhaust
LDA Hot Soak •
LDA Diurnal
LOT Cold/Hot Start
LOT Running Exhaust
LOT Hot Soak
LOT Diurnal
Tl
T/Y
365
66
neg
1,041
234
1,755
58,350
9,270
19,500
12,300
5,000
1,390
3,580
1,680
910
HC
T/D
1.0
0.18
neg
2.85
0.64
4.81
160.0
24.4
53.5
33.7
13.7
3.8
9.8
4.6
2.5
RH
T/Y
365
66
neg
1,041
234
1,755
53,930
8,210
17,230
12,300
5,000
1,240
3,180
1,680
910
C
T/D
1.0
0.18
neg
2.85
0.64
4.81
147.8
22.5
47.2
33.7
13.7
3.4
8.7
4.6
2.5
CC
T/Y
810
3,700
3,254
286
6,459
118,640
93,500
93,000
NA
NA
15,480
58,800
NA
NA
)
T/D
2.22
10.1
8.92
0.78
17.70
1147.0
256.1
529.0
NA
NA
42.4
161
NA
NA
NO
T/Y
600
14
2,228
812
1,191
47,090
2,850
29,900
NA
NA
580
5,180
NA
NA
X
T/D
1.64
0.04
6.10
2.22
3.26
129.0
7.8
81.9
NA
NA
1 .6
14.2
NA
NA
TS
T/Y
25
6
1,823
55
122
6,100
0
4,450
NA
NA
0
730
NA
NA
P
T/D
0.07
0.02
4.99
0.15
0.33
16.7
0
12.2
NA
NA
0
2.0
NA
NA
S(
T/Y
4
42
NF
125
1,388
1,830
0
1 ,460
NA
NA
0
250
NA
NA
Dx
T/D
0.01
0.12
NF
0.34 ,
3.80
5.0
0
4.0
NA
NA
0
0.7
NA
NA
1. Subtotal of Categories 107-125
TABLE I-A Page 2 of 8
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
CATEG
#
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
MOBILE EMISSION SOURCES
MDV Cold/Hot Start
MDV Running Exhaust
MDV Hot Soak
MDV Diurnal
HDG Cold/Hot Start
HDG Running Exhaust
HDG Hot Soak
HDG Diurnal
HDD Cold/Hot Start
HDD Running Exhaust
Street Motorcycle1
Off-Road Motorcycle
Off-Road Heavy Duty
Off-Road Recreational
Farm Equipment
T
T/Y
150
580
150
100
NF
2,000
370
200
NF
400
770
3,132
550
105
180
HC
T/D
0.4
1.6
0.4
0.3
NF
5.5
1.0
0.6
NF
1.1
2.1
8.6
1.5
.3
0.5
Rl
T/Y
150
500
150
ino
NF
1,790
370
200
NF
370
550
2,778
470
93
150
C
T/D
0.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
NF
4.9
1.0
.6
NF
1.0
1.5
: 7.6
1.3
.3
0.4
C(
T/Y
1,570
5,840
NA
NA
NF
47,090
NA
NA
NF
1,100
2,260
5,391
2,660
1,018
1,750
)
T/D
4.3
16
NA
NA
NF
129
NA
NA
NF
3
6.2
14.8
7.3
2.8
4.8
NO
T/Y
110
800
NA
NA
NF
3,870
NA
NA
NF
3,800
NA
21
3,470
61
290
X
T/D
0.3
2.2
NA
NA
NF
10.6
NA
NA
NF
10.4
neg
0.06
9.5
.2
0.8
TS
T/Y
0
110
NA
NA
0
440
NA
NA
0
370
NA
27
200
8
40.0
P
T/D
0
0.3
NA
NA
•0
1.2
NA
NA
0
1.0
neg
0.07
0.6
neg
0.1
SI
T/Y
0
40.0
NA
NA
0
40.0
NA
NA
0
40.0
NA
10
180
2
NA
3x
T/D
0
0.1
NA
NA
0
0.1
NA
NA
0
0.1
neg
0.03
0.5
neg
neg
. Includes, Hot/Cold Starts. Runnincijixhaust^ ot_oa an urna msons^^ ^^^ ^^
TABLE I-A Page 3 of 8
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
CATEG
#
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
POINT AND AREA
EMISSION SOURCES
Paved Roads (Fug. Dust)
Unpaved Roads (Fug. Dust)
Hi Id Fires
Structural Fires
Agricultural Debris
Forest Management
Range Improvement
Weed Abatement
Utility Equipment
Farming Operation
(Fug. Dust)
Construction & Demolition
(Fug. Dust)
Asphalt (Kettles & Tanks)
Asphalt (Cutback & Emul.)
Asphalt (Paving)
Natural Gas (Space
Heating)
Liquified Petroleum Ras
Tl
T/Y
NA
NA
1,184
59
56
18
90
10
2,011
NA
NA
NF
1,044
54
152
7
iC
T/D
NA
NA
3.24
0.16
0.15
0.05
0.25
0.03
5.51
NA
'NA
NF
4.17
0.15
0.42
0.02
RH
T/Y
NA
NA
944
59
56
18
90
10
2,011
NA
NA
NF
1 ,044
43
neg
7
C
T/D
NA
NA
2.59
0.16
0.15
0.05
0.25
0.03
5.51
NA
NA
NF
4.17
0.12
neg
0,02
. CC
T/Y
NA
NA
6,873
711
265
320
508
89
15,480
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
380
18
)
T/D
NA
NA
18.83
1.95
0.73
0.88
1.39
0.24
42.4
NA
NA
neg
NA
NA
1.04
0.05
NO
T/Y
NA
NA
189
17
NF
9
NF
NF
171
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
1,686
78
X
T/D
NA
NA
0.52
0.05
NF
0.02
NF
NF
0.47
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
4.62
0.22
TS
T/Y
64,000
6,734
842
46
27
20
90
12
47
3,153
23,573
neg
NA
NA
190
18
P
T/D
175.3
18.45
2.31
0.13
0.07
0.05
0'.25
0.03
0.13
8.64
64.6
, neg
NA
NA
0.52
0.05
S(
T/Y
NA
NA
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
21
NA
NA
neg
NA
NA
11
neg
)x
T/D
NA
NA
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
0.06
NA
NA
neg
NA
NA
0.03
neg
TABLE I-A Page 4 of 8
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
:ATEG#
146
147
148
COMM1
149
150
151
152
153
FOOD
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
POINT AND AREA
EMISSION SOURCES
Pesticides (Commercial)
Pesticides (Residential)
Domestic Solvent Usage
IRCIAL MANUFACTURING1
Kelp Products
Paint Manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals
Fiberglass Operation
Ink Manufacturing
AND AGRICULTURE2
Fish & Meat Processing
Bulk Grain Terminals
Metallurgical
Sand and Soil Plants
Concrete Batching
Stone Quarries
Asphaltic Concrete
T
T/Y
649
82
1,938
2,797
2,449
104
5
218
21
12
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NF
HC
T/D
1.78
0.22
5.31
11.19
9.80
0.42
0.20
0.87
0.08
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NF
RH
T/Y
649
82
1,938
2,797
2,449
104
5
218
21
H
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NF
C
T/D
1.78
0.22
5.31
11.19
9.80
0.42
0.20
0.87
0.08
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NF
CC
T/Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2
• NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
)
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
T/Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TS
T/Y
NA
NA
NA
30
19
11
NA
NA
neg
110
3
107
18
51
155
4,465
196
P
T/D
NA
NA
NA
0.12
0.08
0.04
NA
NA
neg
0.44
0.01
0.43
0.07
0.20
0.62
17.86
0.78
S
T/Y.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
)x
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
TABLE I-A Page 5 of 8
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
CATEG
//
161
tit
POINT EMISSION SOURCES
Abrasive Blasting
Facilities
T
T/Y
NA
MISCELLANEOUS MINERAL PRODUCTS1 NA
162
163
164
165
Brick/Clay Manufacturing
Perlite Manufacturing
Bulk Mineral Elevators
Wood Products-Furniture
Manufacturing
POWER PLANTS2
166
167
168
169
170
171
Boilers
Turbines
Package Boilers
In-Process Fuel Use3and
Incineration
Boilers (Industrial,
Commerci al / I ns ti tuti on)
Engine Testing
NA
NA
NA
NA
325
232
92
1
1
2
121
\C
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.89
0.64
0.25
neg
neg
0.01
0.48
RH
T/Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
292
203
88
1
1
2
118
C
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.80
0.56
0.24
neg
neg
0.01
0.47
C(
T/Y
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
L.551
1,297
243
14
15
16
278
)
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.26
3.55
0.67
0.04
0.06
0.06
1.11
NO
T/Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9,641
9,108
461
72
190
89
209
X
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.41
24.95
1.26
0.20
0.76
0.36
0.84
TS
T/Y
36
265
89
9
164
1
3,589
3,473
106
10
6
15
77
P
T/D
0.14
1.06
0.35
0.04
0.26
neg
9.84
9.52
0.29
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.31
S(
T/Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15,598
15,097
436
65
21
119
48
)x
T/D
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.73
41.36
1.19
0.18
0.08
0.48
0.19
1.
2.
3.
Subtotal of Categories 162-165
Subtotal of Categories 166-168
In-Process Fuel Use provides the necessary energy for specific industrial processes such as, food processing,stone quarrying, or perlite manufacturing.
TABLE I -A Page 6 of 8
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
:ATEG.#
SURFA
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
POINT AND 'AREA
EMISSIONS SOURCES
CE COATING (Industrial)1
General Metal Parts
and Products
Can and Coil
Paper and Fabric
Auto Refinishing
Wood Furniture
Aerospace
Graphic Printing
Adhesives
Varnishes
Fiberglass Coating
Other Special Coatings
Surface Coating
(Marine)
Surface Coating
(Architectural)
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS
TONS/YEAR
POINT AREA TOTAL
3,397
672
83
3
709
660
925
23
12
63
17
230
533
NA
2,623
532
NA
2
561
522
732
18
10
50
14
182
469
4,032
6,020
1,204
83
5
1,270
1,182
1 ,657
41
22
113
31
412
1,002
4,032
TONS/ DAY
POINT AREA TOTAL
13.59
2.69
0.33
0.01
2.84
2.64
3.70
0.09
0.05
0.25
0.07
0.92
2.13
NA
10.49
2.13
NA
0.01
2.24
2.09
2.93
0.07
0.04
0.20
0.06
0.73
1.88
16.13
24.08
4.82
0.33
0.02
5.08
4.73
6.63
0.16
0.09
0.45
0.12
1.65
4.01
16.13
REACTIVE HYDROCARBONS
TONS/ YEAR
POINT AREA TOTAL
3,397
672
83
3
709
660
925
23
12
63
17
230
533
NA
2,623
532
NA
2
561
522
732
18
10
50
14
182
469
4,032
6,020
1,204
83
5
1,270
1,182
1,657
41
22
113
31
412
1,002
4,032
TONS/ DAY
POINT AREA TOTAL
13.59
2.69
0.33
0.01
2.84
2.64
3.70
0.09
0.05
0.25
0.07
0.92
2.13
NA
10.49
2.13
NA
0.01
2.24
2.09
2.93
0.07
0.04
0.20
0.06
0.73
1.88
16.13
24.08
4.82
0.33
0.02
5.08
4.73
6.63
0.16
0.09
0.45
0.12
1.65
4.01
16.13
00
1..
TABLE I-A
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Page 7 of 8
CATEG.aTT
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
POINT AND AREA
EMISSIONS SOURCES
Surface Cleaning
(Halogenated)
Surface Cleaning
(Non-Halogenated)
Drycleaning
(Halogenated)
Drycleaning
(Non-Halogenated)
Gasoline Storage
(Fixed/Floating)
Gasoline Marketing/
Transfer
Bulk Gasoline Customers
Miscellaneous VOC
Losses
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS
TONS/YEAR
POINT AREA TOTAL
3,052
1,130
1 ,097
668
628
4,432
NA
(See
Note 1)
1,124
2,927
NA
NA
NA
895
18
5,914
4,176
4,057
1,097
668
628
5,327
18
5,914
TONS/ DAY
POINT AREA TOTAL
12.21
4.52
4.39
2.67
1.72
12.14
NA
NA
4.50
11.71
NA
NA
NA
2.45
0.05
23.66
16.70
16.23
4.39
2.67
1.72
14.59
0.05
23.66
REACTIVE HYDROCARBONS
TOMS/YEAR
POINT AREA TOTAL
6
1,130
1,053
668
628
4,432
NA
(See
Note 1)
0
2,927
NA
NA
NA
895
18
5,914
6
4,057
1,053
668
628
5,327
18
5,914
TONS/ DAY
POINT AREA TOTAL
0.02
4.52
4.21
2.67
1.72
12.14
NA
NA
0.00
11.71
NA
NA
NA
2.45
0.05
23.66
0.02
16.23
4.21
2.67
1.72
14.59
0.05
23.66
1. Point Source portion is located in Catenories 149-154
TABLE 1-A
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Page 8 of 8
CATEG
#MOBILE EMISSION SOURCES
MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicular
(Categories 107-125)
All Other
Categories 101-106
and 126-129)
TOTAL
AREA SOURCES
(Categories 130-148)
(Categories 172-192)
Area Portion
TOTAL
POINT SOURCES
(Categories 139-171)
(Categories. 172-192)
Point Portion
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
THC
T/Y
58,350
7,428
65,778
7,354
18,002
25,356
3,257
14,937
18,194
109,328
T/D
160.0
20.37
180.37
21.46
70.87
92.33
12.62
53.37
65.94
338.69
RHC
T/Y
53,930
6,952
60,882
6,951
16,879
23,830
3,222
11,847
15,064
99,781
T/D
147.8
19.04
166.84
20.36
66.37
86.73
12.52
41.00
53.52
307,09
CO
T/Y
418,640
25,328
443,968
24,645
NA
24,645
1,854
NA
1,854
470 ,467
T/D
1147.0
69.44
1216.44
67.51
NA
67.51
5.47
NA
5.47
1289.42
NOx
T/Y
47,090
8,687
55,777
2,153
NA
2,153
11,129
NA
11,129
69 ,059
T/D
129.0
23.79
152.79
5.91
NA
5.91
31.11
NA
31.11
189.81
TSP
T/Y
6,100
2,335
8,435
98,750
NA
98.750
8,910
NA
8,910
116,095
T/D
16.7
6.35
23.05
270.52
NA
270.52
31.11
NA
31.11
324.68
SOx
T/Y
1,830
1,792
3,622
32
NA
32
15,787
NA
15,787
19,441
T/D
5.0
4.91
9.91
0.09
NA
0.09
43.48
NA
43.48
53.48
l — 1
1
o
ABBREVIATIONS:
NA = not applicable
NF = no emission factor
neg = negligible
(<0.5 tons/year, or
<0.005 tons/day)
OPERATING SCHEDULE:
(NOTE: Tons/Year and Tons/Day Totals may not correlate exactly due to rounding).
THC total hydrocarbons
(same as HC or VOC)
RHC = reactive hydrocarbons
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
SOX
TSP
T/Y
T/D
sulfur oxides
total suspended particulates
(same as PART)
tons/year
tons/day
Categories 142, 149-165, 169-188, and 192 are assumed to operate at 250 days per year, the remaining at 365 days per
year.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1-11
TABLE I-S
COMPARISON OF 1978 ACTUAL VS. PROJECTED
EMISSION INVENTORY OF RHC IN TONS/DAY
EMISSION
INVENTORY
CATEGORY
NUMBER
172-182
184
183
185
186
187
188*•*
146
147
149, 153
154, 155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162, 164
165
189
190
166, 168
167
170
170
171
144
145--
134
135
136
137
132
133
138
142
169
143
148
191
1978
TRENDS
CATEGORY
NUMBER
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
54
65
66
it
*
*
*
*STATIONARY AND
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109nom
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 •
59
60
51
62
63
MOBILE SOURCE
SOURCE CATEGORY
Surface Coating (Industrial)
Surface Coating ( Arch i tec tural)
Surface Coating (Marine)
Surface Cleaning (Halogenated)
Surface Cleaning (Non^Halogenated)
Dry Cleaning (Halogenated)
Dry Cleaning (Non-Halogenated)
Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Losses
Pesticides (Commercial)
Pesticides (Residential)
Commercial Manufacturing
i Food and Agriculture
Metal urgical
Sand and Soil Plants
Concrete Batching
Stone Quarries
Asphaltic Concrete
Abrasive Blasting Facilities
Miscellaneous (Mineral Products)
Wood Products
Fixed and Floating Roof Gasoline Storage
Marketi no/Transfer of Gasoline
Electric Generation (Steam)
Electric Generation (Gas Turbine)
Boilers (Industrial)
Boilers (Commercial/Institutional)
Engine Testing
Natural Gas (Primary Space Heating)
Liquified Petroleum Gas
Miscellaneous (Fuel Combustion)
Agricultural Debris
Forest Management
Range Improvement
Weed Abatement
Wildfires
Structural Fires
Utility Equipment
Cutback Asphalt
In-Process Fuel Use
Asphalt Paving
Domestic Solvent Usage
Bulk Gasoline Storage
AREA SOURCE SUBTOTAL
Commercial Aviation
General Aviation (Exhaust)
General Aviation (Evaporative)***
Military
Railroads
Ships/Boats
L.D.A. Cold/Hot Start
L.D.A. Runnina Exhaust
L.D.A. Hot Soak
L.D.A. Diurnal
L.D.T. Cold/Hot Start
L.D.T. Running Exhaust
L.D.T. Hot Soak
L.D.T. Diurnal
M.D.V. Cold/Hot Start
M.D.V. Running Exhaust
M.D.V. Hot Soak
M.D.V. Diurnal
H.D.G. Cold/Hot Start
H.D.G. Running Exhaust
H.D.G. Hot Soak
H.D.G. Diurnal
H.D.D. Cold/Hot Start
H.O.D. Running Exhaust
Street Motorcycle
Off-Road Motorcycle
Off-Road Heavy Duty
Off-Road Recreational
Farm Equipment
EMISSIONS SUBTOTAL
TOTAL RHC EMISSIONS
New Categories added since 1979 SIP
Categories Nos. 192, 149-154
Reevaluated to neglible, see 1978 Emission Inventory Documentation
1979 SIP
BASE YEAR
ACTUAL 1975
39.7
25.7
2.9
1.0
6.0
4.6
2.7
17.3
1.0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.0
22.5
6.4
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.3
0
2.5
4.0
0
NC
NC
NC
T3973"
0.5
0.3
4.1
3.1
0.4
2.1
20.4
53.5
17.5
6.1
3.9
9.2
3.2
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.1
0
7.3
0.9
0.8
0
2.1
2.3
2.8
4.4
0.4
0.5
T497T
PROJECTED
1978
43.5
28.1
3.1
1.1
6.3
4.6
2.7
19.2
1.0
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.0
13.9
0.5
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.3
0
2.7
4.4
0
0
0
0
T3T78
0.5
0.4
4.9
3.1
0.5
2.3
19.8
39.4
17.3
4.8
4.1
7.0
3.3
1.1
0.9
1.3
0.7
0.1
0
7.7
0.9
0.8
0
2.4
2.8
3.3
4.8
0.5
0.5
130
1982 SIP
BASE YEAR
ACTUAL 1978
24.08
16.13
4.01
0.02
16.23
4.21
2.67
34.90
1.78
0.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.72
14.59
0.56
0.24
1 <0.01
0.47
neg
0.02
NC
0.15
0.05
0.25
0.03
2.59
0.16
5.51
4.17
neg
0.12
5.31
0.05
T40.25
1.0
0.18
neg
2.85
0.64
4.81
22.5
47.2
33.7
13.7
3.4
8.7
4.6
2.5
0.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
NF
4.9
1.0
0.6
NF
1.0
1.5
7.6
1 .3
0.26
0.4
166.84
289.5 270.1 307.09
SAN DIEGO APCD 3/81
FIGURE 1.1
1980 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
RHC
Stationary/
Area Sources -
19
Surface Coatin
17.3%
Mfg. & Misc.
Losses -
13.7%
AUTO's - 31.3%
Trucks
10.6%Other
Mobile
Sources
14.8%
Large Trucks
Small Trucks
12.9%
i
ro
Mobile Sources
Home Utility
i Equipment
Other Stationary/
Area Sources
RHC - Reactive Hydrocarbon
CO - Carbon Monoxide
- i9m.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-13
C. RESULTS OF THE 1978 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES
The Table I-A 1978 comprehensive regional emissions are tabulated by source
categories. These correspond generally to the previous categories as found
in the Revised RAQS, the Regional Emission Trends Program and the 1980 RFP
Report.
The added categories are asphalt paving (Category 143), domestic solvent
usage (Category 148), bulk gasoline customers (Category 191) and In Process
Fuel Use (Category 169). The first three area source categories utilize
ARB methodologies applied to air basin boundaries. One Category, #103,
evaporative emissions from General Aviation has been reevaluated and found
to have negligible emissions and will be deleted from future inventories.
Table I-B has been included to show corresondence of the earlier Revised
RAQS Inventory categories to 1978 Emission Inventory categories. New
categories 101-129 in Table I-A correspond exactly to old Trends Categories
35-63. The new category numbers are shown with their corresponding old
numbers. Several new categories have been created (Nos. 172-182) to
reflect data refinements necessary for anticipated rules.
The first column of emission estimates in Table I-B is the 1975 RHC esti-
mates. These are shown only for reference and to indicate how generally
the category may be changing. There are several problems with the previous
1975 inventory: one, it used the old reactivity classification (partly
corrected for halogenated surface and dry cleaning); two, it used now
outdated vehicular emission factors; three, many categories, e.g., surface
coating and cleaning categories, relied on surveys which were not refined
by location or chemical compound.
As discussed earlier the 1978 total stationary (point & area) sources (140
tons/year RHC) correlates very well with the earlier projected value (135
tons/year). The main differences occur in surface coatings, surface
cleaning and manufacturing and miscellaneous losses. The changes tend to
compensate for one another and are not due to changes in methodology. In
Gasoline Marketing and Transfer (Category 190), the trucking emissions from
loading gasoline trucks at tank farms have been removed and allocated to
Category 189 Gasoline Storage (fixed and floating roof) because that is
where these emissions if not controlled would occur. The only other
significant methodology change removes HC losses from fuel combustion for
categories like sand and gravel and groups them as category 169 (In Process
Fuel Use and Incineration).
D. 1982 SIP OZONE MODELING REQUIREMENTS
In addition to providing data for air pollution control tactics and stra-
tegy development, the baseyear inventory must serve as the data base for
computerized photochemical dispersion modeling. No longer is linear roll-
back to be used for 1982 SIP strategy evaluation. These models need
emission input, geographically and temporally, simulated for a "typical"
ozone day.
1-14 I
I
The EPA guidance on emission inventories for ozone modeling for 82 SIP •
requires that a summer day during smog season be used. The 1978 inventory I
for stationary sources includes quarterly seasonal variation. Area source
data is being developed to assess any significant seasonal adjustments.
Ozone modeling also requires use of a gridded hourly inventory. Gridded I
hourly inventories were developed for 1975 and the updating to 1978 base- •
year is in progress. The next step is to incorporate the appropriate
growth, activity indicators and control efficiencies to project future «
emissions. The District is on schedule with this task. I
IE. IMPROVEMENTS IN 1978 BASEYEAR INVENTORY
This new comprehensive inventory incorporates a number of improvements not •
found in the 1975 inventory. An important change, particularly for the I
ozone control plan, for the 1974-75 to the 1978 inventory is the change in
reactivity classifications of volatile organic compounds. The earliest
inventories (1972) did not distiguish between high, medium and low photo- •
chemically reactive volatile organic compounds. In the 1978 Emission In- •
ventory volatile organic compounds are classified as total hydrocarbons
(THC) and reactive hydrocarbons (RHC). In the 1974-75 inventory a compli- •
cated three level reactivity scheme approved by ARB was used. Subsequent £
to the 1979 SIP development and local approval process, EPA published final
guidance in the Federal Register of July 22, 1980 (see Appendix C ) deline- —ating only methane, ethane, 1,1,1, trichloroethane, methylene chloride and •
certain freons as non-photochemically reactive in the near atmosphere. •
Only these compounds are excluded from the THC inventory to develop the RHC
category. Emission reduction credits for ozone control plans can only be •
taken for RHC. f
The 1978 Inventory reexamined the chemical profiles for every category. _
The "non-reactive" 1,1,1, trichloroethane and methylene chloride are pri- •
marily used in surface cleaning operations such as vapor degreasers. The •
1980 RFP Report revised the surface cleaning tactic worksheet to conform to
the EPA reactivity guidance. However, these revisions were based only on •
engineering estimates. The 1978 data in Table I-A and the tactic work- J
sheets are based on actual surveys by chemical compound name. The change
to the new more inclusive reactivity classification made only minor _
differences in most of the other emission categories. Further details on •
reactivity and the hydrocarbon chemical classification profiles used are ™
summarized in the Appendices of the 1978 Emission Inventory Documentation
Report. •
As used in previous inventories the latest revision of AP-42, Supple-
ment 10 (a comprehensive set of emission factors prepared by EPA) was used. _
Each year some of these categories are revised, thus the inventory conti- I
nues to improve due to better emission factor data. However, it should be •
noted that the AP-42 represents average data and actual source test data
should be used whenever possible. Accordingly, source test data was used •
whenever available and of sufficient reliability. |
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-15
An important but frequently omitted component in emission inventory im-
provement is adequate documentation and retention of documentation of the
myriad of simplifying assumptions that are required to inventory as complex
a system as the regional emissions. Though few inventories have developed
the refinement of confidence or reliability indices, documentation pro-
vides at least the first step. Moreover, documentation can expedite State
and Federal review actions and most importantly provide the foundation for
good cost-effectiveness control measure and tactics evaluation to assist
decision-makers.
Inventories are divided into mobile and stationary (point and area) source
categories. Point Sources are defined as sources for which a specific
location is specified. Area sources are numerous small sources, e.g., pes-
ticides, space heating, etc., usually not requiring a permit.
The area and non-vehicular mobile source categories used the latest metho-
dologies provided by ARB. The District directly resurveyed for 1978, the
activity levels in ships, boats, aircraft, wildfires, asphalt, pesticide
usage, etc., from the appropriate agencies. Minicomputer programs were
developed to expedite numerical calculations and reduce calculation
errors.
Some of the important improvements for the inventory came from the station-
ary source category particularly with respect to documenting control effec-
tiveness and other assumptions. In 1977 the District installed the
EIS/P&R, a computerized data management system for recording plant name and
location, type and amount of emissions, control, throughputs, emission
factors, etc. However, this system was never fully integrated with the
permit file system, the enforcement activities connected with permit rene-
wals, or the new permit evaluation and issuance process. This 1978 inven-
tory for the first time fully utilized the permit file and equipment lists
to survey every facility with an APCD permit and documented this data into
the computerized EIS/P&R system. Previously EIS/P&R only contained updated
data on facilities with greater than 25 tons/year emissions. The 1978
point source file has increased from about 90 to 2000 recorded facilities.
Previously the emissions from these newly inventoried facilities were
estimated by area source methodology rather than point source.
To begin the process of developing a system to keep the stationary source
emission inventory current, accurate and comprehesive, a preliminary qua-
lity assurance program was designed and tested on the 1978 inventory for
the first time. The first step in improving the quality of the stationary
source data was to institute a technical review of major inventory source
facilities by engineers responsible for similar type permit evaluation. By
checking only these larger facilities, about 70% of RHC and over 90% of CO,
NOx, TSP a.nd SOx emissions from stationary sources were evaluated for
appropriateness of control efficiency, emission factor, throughput, and any
other data assumed in the 1978 analysis.
To improve comprehensiveness, the above review checked for and revealed
some overlooked or under-reporting facilities. Another step taken to im-
prove comprehensiveness was the cross checking of the facility records
1-16 "
I
against the permit files to assure that appropriate survey type forms were •
sent according to the latest APCD permit record. Omissions and inaccura- I
cies in the previous 1977 major source file were detected and corrected. *
Also for the first time the Emission Inventory section staff developed a •
coding procedure and a computer program to sort emissions by source cate- •
gory, a process previously done by hand and never fully documented. These
source categories were specifically designed to match the earlier TRENDS m
categories used in the 1979 SIP and refine them where necessry to more •
accurately represent the emissions from the categories controlled by the
proposed or existing rules. The Engineering staff provided reviews of
these categories and assisted in the development of procedures for estimat- •
ing emissions from those facilities which did not report 1978 data. Some m
of these did not report because they were new businesses or old businesses
which had subsequently gone out of business. This process revealed several M
previously over and under estimated categories. I
Comprehensiveness was improved by two additional steps. One, every faci-
lity not responding initially to the survey was followed-up by first writ- I
ing, then phone calls or visits by Enforcement staff to obtain 1978 data if •
possible. For major sourcs, the previous years' reports were compared to
1978 values and major variances were checked. •
During the 1978 Emission Inventory analysis the evaporative emissions from
General Aviation were reevaluated (Category 103 on Table I-A). These were
originally thought to be as high as 4.1 tons/day in 1975. Emission reduc- •
tion from control of evaporation from gasoline tanks of small airplanaes •
were projected as 0.1 tons/day RHC in 1980, and growing to 3.8 tons/day in
1987. This source has been reanalyzed and the original assumptions shown •
to be incorrect. The new analysis shows this source to be approximately |
0.43 tons/year RHC. Thus, this source category will be dropped from future
analysis. For futher details consult the area source portion of the 1978
Emissions Inventory Documentation Report. I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER II
DETAILED RFP ASSESSMENT/CONTROL MEASURE STATUS
CONTROLS IMPLEMENTED CY 1980
This section contains a discussion of the implementation status of the
control measures, which became effective in CY 1980 and were contained in
the adopted 79 SIP of the Revised RAQS. The stationary and area source
control measures were reevaluated by the San Diego APCD. Detailed Tactic
Evaluation Worksheets are found in the appendix. The District also
reevaluated the vehicular mobile sources category for 1980 and future years
based on the Series IVb population and activity indicators and the lastest
EMFAC 6C emission factor model provided by ARB. Using these data APCD
reassessed the effectiveness of the only adopted 79 SIP vehicular source
control measure, vehicular inspection and maintenance (I/M), (see appendix
for Worksheet M-24). Several other vehicular control measures were
included in the locally adopted Revised RAQS and were relied on to achieve
and maintain the standards, however, these were not adopted by ARB in their
resolution (see Appendix H). SANDAG assessed progress in CY 1980 in
implementing transportation control measures and the documentation is
included at the end of this Chapter.
A. STATIONARY (POINT AND AREA) CONTROL IMPLEMENTED CY 1980
During 1980, within the stationary point and area sources, five major rules
were implemented: vapor recovery at fixed and floating roof gasoline bulk
storage sites; vapor recovery for gasoline retail marketing and transfer;
limitation of cutback asphalts; architectural coating reformulation; and
controls of dry cleaning using petroleum solvents.
An additional rule, 67.6, surface cleaning, became effective near the end
of 1980, however, it controls a large number of small existing sources and
these emission reductions could not be evaluated for this report. The
following section explains the procedure used to evaluate rule and
proposed control measures (Tactic) effectiveness.
Evaluation worksheets were prepared for each of the locally adopted Revised
RAQS control measures, which were subsequently approved by ARB for
implementation or further study. Each worksheet consists of two parts;
first, a Tactic Evaluation (Worksheet la) and second, a Tactic Reevalua-
tion or a Rules/Regulation Evaluation (Worksheet Ib) (see Appendix B).
The Tactic Evaluation worksheet summarizes information based on the 1979
plan submittal. The worksheet includes such information as the pollutnat
controlled, the emissions inventory source category subject to the
control, the tactic description, the responsible implementation agency,
scheduled (rule/regulation) adoption date, and projected effective
compliance date. Also included are emission reduction estimates due to
II-2 I
I
tactic implementation; which reflect baseline (TRENDS) emissons and
control effectiveness forecasted in the plan. It should be noted that the •
original tactic evaluations considered baseline emissions and control |
effectiveness based on five-year intervals, but the attached worksheets
provide year-by-year figures. ^
The second portion of the worksheet for each control tactic reevaluates the •
tactic and provides actual or revised estimates of implementation status
and control effectiveness. The information included corresponds to the •
kinds of information provided in the Tactic Evaluation. For each tactic |
adopted in rule form, included is a description of the rule, and identi-
fication of the responsible implementing agency, the rule adoption date, _
and the implementation (or compliance) date based on provisions of the •
rule. Revised emission reduction estimates are also included. Changes in ™
these estimates are due to revisions to the baseline (TRENDS) emission
projections from the 1978 emission inventory. Revised emission reduction •
estimates are also included. Changes in these estimates are due to revi- |
sions to the baseline (TRENDS) emission projections and/or the anticipated
control effectiveness of the measure. Explanations and documentation of •
these revisions are also included. For those tactics which have not been •
adopted in rule form, then a Tactic Reevaluation was prepared. Revised *
adoption schedules and control effectiveness estimates are indicated and
justification provided. •
Future year implementation of rules adopted prior to the Revised RAQS/79
SIP preparation, for dry cleaning (petroleum based), architectural surface •
coatings and 90% vapor recovery were assumed in the baseline (TRENDS) •
emission projections for the Revised RAQS. Progress in implementing these "
rules is reassessed in this section for purposes of determining their
effect on baseline emissions and not for assessing any additional credit I
toward attainment of NAAQS. •
Worksheets were reevaluated using 1978 Emission Inventory values and •
Series IVb population and employment projections and reevaluated control •
of effectiveness if available. The Tactic Evaluation Report for the 82 m
SIP will reevaluate these control measures with the Series V projections
when they are available and any other new data. The following section I
summarizes the six rules implementation in 1980. •
Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Bulk Storage P8a (Rule 61.1) •
Rule 61.1 increases the minimum control efficiency of vapor recovery for
hydrocarbon emissions from bulk gasoline storage from 90 to 95% (see Tactic
P8a revaluation worksheet in appendix). The emissions affected were I
projected in the 1980 RFP report at 1.0 ton/day with 0.5 tons/day emission •
reduction expected. Using the 1980 inventory update and emissions source
test data, 0.1 tons/day RHC of emission reduction credit is due to this 79 •
SIP control measure in 1980. In the 1980 RFP report six potential faci- I
lities were anticipated being affected by Rule 61.1. However, only the two
with fixed roof storage could be shown by current test data to have im-
proved significantly. One facility's control equipment was not in opera* •
tion until near the end of 1980. At several facilities the equipment has •
not yet been able to show the expected 95% control efficiency.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II-3
Vapor Recovery for Gasoline Marketing and Transfer P8b (Rule 61.2, 61.3, 61.4)
Rules 61.2, 61.3, 61.4 address increasing the control efficiency of vapor
recovery during the bulk delivery of gasoline and during the pumping of
gasoline into vehicles from 90 to 95%. The 79 SIP control measure antici-
pated 0.7 tons/day RHC of emission reduction credit toward RFP in 1980.
The 1981 RFP revaluation using the 1980 update estimates 0.4 tons/day
emission reduction credit. The truck loading losses occurring at tank
farms are now credited to the tank farms instead of the gas stations as
done in the Revised RAQS.
To track the effectiveness of this tactic the District analyzed the permit
files for Phase II vapor recovery installations at gas stations. Approxi-
mately 765 gas stations of the estimated 1400 stations which would be
affected have installed 95% efficient Phase II equipment in 1980. Thus,
the emissions drop impressively from 4336 tons/year without control in 1980
to 2807 tons/year or a total reduction of 1529 tons/year or 6.8 tons/day by
the end of 1980. This control measure had phased implementation with
approximately 1/3 of the emission reduction anticipated in 1980 and full
implementation by 1985. Implementation in 1980 was ahead of schedule.
Sixty-five percent of the total gasoline dispensing was controlled with 95%
Phase II equipment. Full implementation is expected by December, 1982.
Cutback Asphalt P-24 (Rule 67.7)
Rule 67.7 which was adopted August 1979 prohibits the usage of rapid cure
and medium cure cutback asphalts starting July 1980 except at temperatures
below 50°F. This 79 SIP control measure anticipated 1.0 tons/day RHC re-
duction due to 22% control of the 4.6 tons/day anticipated 1980 emissions.
The 1978 emission level as surveyed and found to be 4.17 tons/day RHC of
which 1.00 tons/day could be controlled by the Rule. Compliance with this
control measure has been enhanced by the ease of substitution of emulsified
asphalts and high cost of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalts. Local
asphalt manufacturers report they are not making any more rapid or medium
cure asphalts. Thus full compliance is expected and 1.00 tons/day RHC
emission reduction is credited toward RFP for this tactic in 1980. How-
ever, the latest figures show 2.44 tons/day for slow cure cutback asphalt
usage which is lower than 3.2 tons/day for slow cure cutback asphalt usage
assumed in the RFP 80 report. What may be happening is the usage of slow
cure is decreasing also. It is too early to estimate a trend for this
category. However, it appears that this control measure may be ahead of
schedule.
Dry Cleaning (Petroleum Solvents) P-l (Rule 67.2)
Rule 67.2 prohibits the operation of dry cleaning equipment using petroleum
solvents that does not meet certain specifications and procedures such as
venting dryer exhaust through 90% efficient carbon adsorption control
equipment. This control measure was adopted in January, 1978 as a Rule
and credited in the original RAQS and thus is included in the baseline
TRENDS and cannot be credited in the 79 SIP RFP line. On January 31, 1978
all new equipment required controls and on January 1, 1980 all equipment
installed prior to January 31, 1978 and consuming 10,000 qal/yr of solvent
II-4 I
I
required controls. Four facilities came under this rule, one of these •
closed their petroleum dry cleaner activities. Two have installed comply- I
ing equipment and one is on variance. The emission level of 2.7 tons/day
RHC predicted is being achieved in 1980. The control efficiency of 66% was
predicted in the 80 RFP Report to reduce the emissions by 1.8 tons/day •
leaving 0.9 tons/day remaining. The larger facilities affected by Rule •
67.2 were resurveyed in 1980 and their emissions went from 2.01 tons/day
before controls in 1978 to 1.50 tons/day in 1980. This provides a 0.49 •
tons/day baseline TREND reduction. This control measure is basically on I
schedule.
IArchitectural Coatings P-3 (Rule 67.0)
Rule 67.0 was adopted in 1977 and the first step became effective in
September of 1979 which specified maximum volatile organic (VOC) material •
content in architectural coatings manufactured after that date. The second |
step which became effective in September of 1980 limited the VOC content of
interior architectural coatings also. These control measures were adopted
as part of the original RAQS and thus contributes to the reduction of the I
TRENDS baseline rather than the 79 SIP RFP line. . •
Emission reductions are on schedule for this measure. Moreover, the 1978 •
emission inventory level of 16.1 tons/day RHC indicates that the antici- |
pated emission reductions may even be ahead of previously anticipated
level of 28.1 tons/day. From this analysis it appears that the 25% RHC _
reduction level anticipated by 1980 may have been exceeded and the District •
may be closer to the 75% reduction level anticipatd by 1981. This analysis •
indicates that reformulaton of architectural surface coatings achieved
about 12.7 RHC tons/day reduction instead of 7.4 tons leaving only about •
17.0 tons/day remaining. |
It should be noted that it has been very difficult to obtain accurate myearly emissions data on architectural coatings because permits to sell or •
use paints were not required by the District. Thus APCD has requested ARB •
to develop surrogates, such as building activity, population, statewide
paint sales, to track the progress of this significant RHC control mea- •
sure. The ARB's area source methodology estimated approximately 12.0 |
tons/day RHC in San Diego from this source. Local tracking of the level of
compliance with the rule should improve when the requirement for large m
painting contractors to obtain APCD permits and report paint type and usage •
annually becomes fully implemented. An APCD survey of large paint sup- *
pliers in 1980 has shown general ability to comply with Rule 67.0 except
for certain interior high gloss enamels for which a reformulated complying •
paint has not been developed. |
Organic Compound Surface Cleaners P-2 (Rule 67.6) .
Rule 67.6, which controls organic compound emissions from surface cleaning ™
operations, was implemented in September, 1980. In the previous RFP
report approximately 2.3 tons/day of RHC emissions reductions was •
projected for this source by the end of 1982, when fully implemented. |
Since the Rule was implemented so near the end of the year and is control-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II-5
ling .individually small sources it was not possbile to determine actual
emission reduction credits for Calendar Year 1980. Emission reduction
credits were not anticipated until 1981 in the 79 SIP.
It will be difficult to determine emission reductions due to this Rule for
the following reasons:
One, compliance with the rule by existing sources will be evaluated by
APCD inspectors. If a degreaser can be modified easily, e.g.,
following certain procedures, fixing a thermostat, etc., then no new
permit is required. No emissions reduction for this action is
credited.
Two, degreasing operations could switch to exempt (non-photochemically
reactive) solvents and the emission reduction credits will be difficult
to track.
Three, in the 1978 emissions inventory it was found that only 28% of
the surface cleaning reactive solvent usage is being tracked through
the sources with APCD permits. The rule, however, does affect
degreasing equipment operations which do not require an APCD permit.
Thus the current permit based inventory process does not track
emission reduction credits from these sources.
Finally, because this is a source dominated by the area source usage it
has been suggested that a surrogate such as major supplier's surveys be
used.
The District is studying the development of a data management tracking
method for new permits issued under this rule and has requested assistance
from ARB in developing surrogate measures.
It should be noted that a supplier survey was used in 1978 to estimate the
area source usage factors. It was found in the 1978 emissions inventory
that 16.23 tons/day of reactive solvents were being used. The 1975 base-
year emission inventory projected to 1978 predicted 20.0 tons/day. Due to
a revision requested by ARB during the 79 SIP review process the emissions
were decreased by 60% to 7.4 tons/day to account for ARB's estimate of sol-
vent recycling and dumping. Subsequently APCD initiated a detailed local
survey of recycling and dumping and found only 22% recycling and dumping
occurred in 1978. Thus the emissions reductions estimates would be revised
from 2.3 to 5.1 tons/day for 1982 when fully implemented. From the permits
processed it is estimated by Chemical Engineering District Staff that this
rule is effective in reducing the usage of reactive solvents in degreasing
equipment at facilities where permits are already existing.
11-6
B. MOBILE SOURCE CONTROLS IMPLEMENTED 1980
Reactive Hydrocarbons 157 124 33
Carbon Monoxide 1176.7 876.8 300
In addition to the Mobile Source Control Measures there are Transportation
Control Measures. The discussion following has been provided by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for inclusion in this report.
I
I
I
No new mobile source control measures, e.g., stricter vehicle standards,
occurred in 1980. The vehicle fleet improvement in the composite emission •
factors continued and is due primarily to the expected old vehicle I
replacement. Since the submittal of the 79 SIP, over two years ago, to the *
ARB the emissons from vehicular mobile sources have been reduced as
follows: •
EMISSIONS TONS/DAY
1978 1980 Emission ™
Vehicular Mobile Sources Level Level Reduction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-7
C. TRANSPORTATION TACTICS - RFP ASSESSMENT
Introduction
In the Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy adopted in 1978, the emission
reduction role expected of transportation control measures is quite small.
For example, the adopted transportation measures are expected to reduce
reactive hydrocarbon emissions by 0.7 tons per day in 1987, less than one
percent of the total reduction needed to meet the ambient ozone standard
by that year. Carbon monoxide emission reductions attributable to trans-
portation measures in 1987 are 6.53 tons per day; this is less than four
percent of the total reductions needed to meet the carbon monoxide standard.
In adopting the 1978 Revised RAQS, local elected officials decided to
rely primarily on stationary source controls and technological controls
on mobile sources to meet air quality standards. This decision was based
on analytical data which showed that, generally speaking, stationary and
mobile source controls would result in larger emission reductions at less
overall cost than would transportation measures. It was also clear that
many potential transportation measures, which are designed to reduce travel
and cause shifts to modes of travel other than the single-occupant automobile,
would significantly change the lifestyles of regional residents and would
be highly unpopular.
The decision was made, therefore, to place minimal reliance on transpor-
tation control measures (T-Tactics). The eight principal transportation
measures and six support measures which were adopted are listed in the
chart on the next page.
Due to the nature of transportation control measures, and the large number
of agencies and jurisdictions with implementation responsibilities, a
large amount of information is needed to determine whether adopted trans-
portation tactics are being implemented on schedule and are proving as
effective as anticipated. There are three major areas of concern in
assessing progress:
1. Are actions called for in the plan being implemented on schedule?
2. Are tactics as effective as anticipated in reducing vehicular
activity and emissions?
3. Are changes in overall regional vehicular activity and emissions
consistent with targets in the plan?
Answers to these questions were provided by a three-phase monitoring
program:
Some information on implementation was provided in responses to SANDAG's
Regional Comprehensive Plan Implementation Survey, which was conducted
among local planning staffs in March and April of 1981. One portion
of the survey dealt with the implementation status of the Revised RAQS.
II-8
ADOPTED TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE TACTICS
1978 REVISED RAGS
Tactic Nutter
and Name
.T-l Mcdif ied:
Modified Land
Itee Process
T-2: ExpandedRide sharing
T-5: Expanded
Transit
T-7: Encourage
Bicycle Travel
T-14 Traffic
Flow Improvements
T-21: Flex-Tineand Staggered
Work Hours*
T-22: Preferential
Parking for Ride-
sharers*
T-23: Carpcol Toll
Reduction on
Coronado Bridge*
T-24: Park-and-Ride Facilities*
T:25: TrafficEngineering for
Transit*
T-26: Reduced On-
Street Parking in
Service and Commer-
cial Districts*
T-27: Encourage
Pedestrian Mode
T-28: ExpandedInter-urban Busand Rail
T-29: Freeway
Ramp Metering
*Support tactic.
Tactic Description
Calls for continued participation in RegionalQrowth Forecasting process, a determination
of the consistency of local development projectswith adopted Forecasts, and consideration of
project-level measures to implement otherT-Tactics.
Includes reccranended actions to reduce \MT
and trips by increasing ridesharing arrange-
ments.
Includes recommended actions to increase
use of transit services.
Includes project-leavel measures and institu-
tional arrangements to promote use of bicycles.
Includes reccmnended measures to smooth
traffic flows and maintain traffic speedsat current levels.
Permits limited indiviually-tailored workhours to smooth traffic flows (and transitdemand), and encourage ridesharing arrange-
ments.
•
Encourages ridesharing by providing an
increased number of parking spaces for
ridesharers in choice locations.
Encourages carpcoling by instituting a
reduced bridge toll for carpcolers.
Encourages use of transit and carpcoling
by establishing collector parking lots forbus riders and ridesharers along majortransportation routes.
Includes recommended projects and design
specifications to facilitate use of transit.
Reduces on-street parking in congested areas
to facilitate transit service and reduce
•automobile/bicycle conflicts
Includes education programs and provision
of better pedestrian facilities to encourage
walking on short trips, rather than using
a motor vehicle.
Provides for increased bus and rail servicein the Los Angeles-San Diego Corridor.
Includes signalizing selected on-ramps to
improve traffic flows on freeways and to
encouraging use of transit and ridesharing
by providing bypass lanes at ranps.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II-9
Although the responses contained less detailed information than was ob-
tained from the 1979 T-Tactic Implementation Questionnaire used for the
previous RFP Report, the 1980 survey responses do provide a comparative
picture of 1980 implementation progress by the various local jurisdictions.
During 1980, as in previous years, a comprehensive data collection
program was used to measure the actual performance of tactics. The
resulting monitored data, where available, were compared with targets
established in the Revised RAQS and tactic effectiveness was objectively
determined.
Annual average weekday vehicle miles of travel (VMT) were estimated
based on traffic counts taken by CALTRANS and local jurisdictions.
The estimate takes into account the impacts of changes in extraneous
factors (e.g., gasoline shortages) on vehicular activity and emissions. •
A comparison of monitored VMT with VMT targets in the Revised RAQS en-
abled overall RFP to be assessed.
11-10
LOCAL PLAN/TRANSPORTATICN COORDINATION PROCESS
Referral to SANDAG of local General and Community Plans or plan
amendments which are inconsistent with the location and timing
of development in the current growth forecasts, with SANDAG
providing recommendations on reconciling the inconsistencies.
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Regional Growth Forecasts
The Series V Forecasts, adopted by SANDAG on November 17, 1980, reflect
the likely distribution of 2.47 million people throughout the region in
I
I
T-l (MODIFIED) •
I
I
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
This tactic is an air quality maintenance measure intended to achieve
long-term air quality benefits through coordinated land use and trans-
portation actions by local general-purpose governments, SANDAG, transit •
districts and other special-purpose districts. |
The tactic recognizes that both "local General and Community Plans and M
elements of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) are officially adopted I
land use and transportation policies in the San Diego region. The tactic
is a process for achieving and maintaining consistency among local plans
and elements of the RCP, including the current Regional Growth Forecast I
and the currently adopted regional air, water and transportation plans. •
Tactic T-l (Modified) called for the following actions: •
o Continuing participation by local general-purpose governments
in the biennial Regional Growth Forecasting Process.
I
o Consideration by local governments of project-level measures to •
facilitate the use of transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking I
as ways of implementing T-Tactics in the Revised RAQS. ™
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY •
Local governments are responsible for implementing this tactic. SANDAG
is responsible for producing the biennial growth forecasts, for developing •
an effective consistency determination process for adoption by local govern- •
ments, and for developing model project-level measures for consideration
by local governments.
RFP TARGETS I
As a maintenance measure, no emission reduction targets were established •
or claimed for this tactic. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-11
1995; a forecast of 2.65 million has also been produced for the year 2000.
The regional population total was accepted by the SANDAG Board in February,
1979, for use in this update. The total represents the level and rate of
population growth that is likely, in the region based on current and projected
trends in fertility, mortality, migration, and current public policies af-
fecting such population-related factors as employment growth. The Series V
Forecasts are the product of a cooperative effort between SANDAG and each
city in the region, as well as the County of San Diego. The forecasts
represent a consensus of local General and Conmunity Plans and the likely
distribution of the region's future growth to each jurisdiction based on
those plans.
The city councils of all cities in the region adopted the Series V
Forecasts in late 1980 and early 1981, although the City of Del Mar
adopted the forecast for its own jurisdiction but declined to endorse
the 1995 regional total, which Del Mar council members believe should
be lower than 2.47 million people. The County of San Diego also has
declined to adopt the Series V Forecasts on grounds that the regional
totals are too high.
Plan/Forecast Consistency
This provision of Tactic T-l required the development of a process to
determine and maintain consistency between the growth forecasts and the
local General and Ccnmunity Plans. Consistency is important since the
forecasts are based on assumptions derived in large part from local plans
and policies. The forecasts, in turn, form the population and land use
bases of regional plans such as the Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy.
(Series IVB was the basis of the 1978 Revised RAQS; Series V will serve
the same function for the 1982 revisions to the RAQS.)
During 1980, SANDAG staff refined the consistency determination process
and, for the first time, obtained commitments to use the process from
local jurisdictions.
The consistency process has three steps: (1) producing population
forecasts cooperatively with the local agencies; (2) obtaining commitments
from the agencies to work with SANDAG in assuring that consistency exists
and is maintained between the adopted forecasts and local General and
Community Plans; and (3) using the state environmental review process
to monitor and achieve the consistency of new development proposals
with the adopted forecasts^
The first step was accomplished during 1980, as noted previously. The
second step — obtaining consistency commitments from local jurisdictions —
also was accomplished as part of the Series V adoption process. In September,
1980, SANDAG and local planning staffs drafted a sample Series V adoption
resolution which committed jurisdictions to working with SANDAG "to assure
that consistency exists between the Series V Regional Growth Forecasts and
General and Community Plans and that this consistency is measurable and
reportable to federal and state agencies." All local jurisdictions,
excepting the County of San Diego, committed to this process in adopting
Series V.
11-12
I
I
The third step — use of the process to monitor and achieve consistency — I
is an ongoing effort. SANDAG staff reviews land development proposals •
and environmental impact reports submitted under the California Environ-
mental Quality Act. Ihe primary'purpose of the review is to determine •
consistency between the development proposal and the growth forecasts. . |
The consistency determination process is important locally because
SANDAG and local governments must mitigate the adverse economic/fiscal _
and environmental impacts of the population growth described by the I
forecasts. Developnent that is inconsistent with the forecasts makes ™
mitigation more difficult. Consistency determination is also of partic-
ular importance to the State Air Resources Board and the Environmental •
Protection Agency* Consistency is measured in two ways: |
1. Are the projects' proposed land use and projected population generally •
consistent with the site specific land use assumptions on which the ' •
forecasts are based? These assumptions, which represent a staging
of General Plans, are supplied by local staffs.
2. Will the cumulative, impact of development projects and subsequent •
new population in a subregional area, over a period of time, be
consistent with the forecasts? For this analysis the region has •
been divided into 39 subareas consisting of the 16 cities (San Diego |
is further divided into its six major statistical areas), the 17
County Community Planning Areas, and the sparsely developed mountain _
and desert areas. •
Failure to meet the first criterion is not necessarily a problem. . .
Development can .be "traded off" against other specific projects included •
in the forecasts which will not be built for any of a' number of reasons. |
A project, or projects, of approximately the same size which was not
included in the forecasts can take the place of one that was, the •
impacts being generally the same within the same subarea. •
If the second criterion is not met, the problem is much more severe.
For instance, substantially cumulative greater growth within a subarea I
than was forecast between 1980 and 1985 translates directly into greater I
environmental impacts, greater public facility costs, more energy con-
sumption, and more vehicle miles traveled than planned. Cne consequence
is the application of more stringent RAQS tactics.I
The difference between mitigating the adverse impacts of planned (i.e.,
forecast) growth and the need to develop new ways to mitigate the impacts •
of unplanned growth is a major problem within these subregional areas and •
cumulatively for the entire region and all of the jurisdictions in the
region. •
Early in 1981, SANDAG staff reported it had identified nine major
developments proposed in the region which were inconsistent with the «
Series V Forecasts. The SANDAG Board of Directors directed staff to •
notify the jurisdictions concerned- and to identify the economic and ™
environmental consequences of such inconsistent developments.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-13
Project-Level Measures
During 1919, SANDAG staff developed a package of project-level transpor-
tation measures to assist local jurisdictions in partially fulfilling
their T-Tactic commitments. The package included the following:
o • A model zoning ordinance amendment to provide bicycle storage
facilities at major new buildings or new uses of existing
buildings.
o A model zoning ordinance amendment to provide preferential
rideshare parking at major new buildings or uses.
o A model subdivision ordinance amendment to provide transit,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements at new developments.
o A model building code amendment to provide shower and changing
room facilities for bicyclists at major new buildings.
o A model resolution to encourage ridesharing and related trans-
portation programs by private employers.
Little progress was made during 1980 in adopting and implementing this
package, although several jurisdictions adopted or began staff evaluations
of individual measures similar to the model ordinances. Particular prog-
ress was made in bicycle parking requirements, and several jurisdictions
reported continuing or expanded policies concerning the provision of
pedestrian, transit or bicycle facilities as conditions of approval
for new developments.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF 1980 RFP
Not applicable.
RFP STATUS
The absence of quantifiable targets and clearly defined implementation
schedules makes it impossible to objectively assess the RFP status of
this tactic. However, certain major milestones were achieved: Series V
Forecasts were cooperatively developed and subsequently adopted by all
local jurisdictions except.the County of San Diego, and all local juris-
dictions except the County committed to working with SANDAG in identifying
and rectifying local plan and population forecast inconsistencies. The
effectiveness of this voluntary approach cannot yet be determined. Less
progress (at least less regionwide, systematic progress) was made in
implementing specific project-level measures to facilitate other trans-
portation tactics. In general, however, implementation of this tactic
is considered to be progressing satisfactorily.
11-14
T-2 RIDESHARING
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
SANDAG's responsibilities include coordinating implementation of the
ridesharing tactic with local jurisdictions and Commuter Computer, and
working with Commuter Computer to improve its computer matching service.
RFP TARGETS
I
I
I
I
I
The purpose of this tactic is to shift travel from single-occupant
vehicles to those carrying two or more persons, thereby reducing •
total travel. Ridesharing entails prearranged shared rides by |
people traveling at similar times from approximately the same
origin to approximately the same destination. The primary ride- _
sharing arrangements for work trips are carpools, vanpcols and % •
buspools. Major emphasis also is placed on employers, who collect ™
and distribute ridesharing information and promote the ridesharing
concept among their employees. Assistance is also available to •
individuals through dial-in services. Supporting air quality I
tactics include flex-time, preferential parking for ridesharers,
carpool toll reduction on the Coronado Bridge, and freeway ramp •
metering by-pass lanes for high-occupancy vehicles and buses. •
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
IThe primary implementation agency is CALTRANS, which conducts
"Commuter Computer", the region's principal ridesharing program. . ,,
This program was established in July, 1975, in response to national, •
state and local needs to improve air quality, conserve energy and |
reduce traffic congestion. Two of the major functions provided by
Commuter Computer are performing computerized carpool matching and _
initiating private employer ridesharing programs through contacts •
with individual employers. The involvement of major employers, •
either through participation in Conmuter Computer's program or
through setting up their own internally-operated programs, is •
essential since most carpool arrangements are made at the place |
of work.
Local general purpose governments are responsible for implementing I
ridesharing programs for their own public employees, which can serve
as examples for private employers. Local governments also are expected
to actively promote ridesharing with private employers in their juris- I
dictions. •
I
The direct impact of this tactic is to increase the number of ride-
sharers (persons carpooling,3vanpooling and using subscription bus). •
The Revised RAQS contains rideshare targets for 1980 and 1985 based |
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-15
on a trend analysis of Commuter Computer's past performance in forming
new carpools. Additional carpools are assumed to form outside of
Commuter Computer's program. An expanded vanpool program also is
anticipated by 1985. .long-term rideshare targets for 1990, 1995 - .
and 2000 are based on a market penetration- analysis of large employers.
Travel and emission reduction targets are developed from the rideshare
target using the procedure outlined in the appendix. The following
table summarizes targets for T-2:
Target 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Rideshare rs
VMT
Vehicle Trips
PHC (Tons/Day)
CO (Tons/Day)
+10,000
- 0.5%
- 0.1%
- 0.22
- 2.23
+19,000
- 0.8% '
- 0.2%
- 0.22
- 2.28
+40,000
- 0.2%
- 0.5%
- 0.35
- 3.52
+98,000
- 0.9%
- 1.0%
- 0.70
- 7.10
+154,000
- 2.8%
- 1.4%
- 1.05
-10.86
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Implementation activities during 1980 are described below for each
implementing agency.
Commuter Computer
Commuter Computer's program is made up of six major activities which are
conducted on a continuing basis. Cne of the activities, park-and-ride lot
construction, is described under T-24. The remaining'activities include:
o Computer Matching System. The computerized matching system generates
individualized match lists for potential carpcolers. Persons request-
ing assistance are included as carpool candidates in the system.
The computer program matches an individual applicant with all candi-
dates having similar home and work locations and whose working start
times are within one-half hour. In addition, the list provides the
applicant with vanpool, buspcol and transit information.
o Candidate File Maintenance. Candidates are contacted by mail every
six months to insure the accuracy of information in the carpool candi-
date master file. Candidates are asked to return a postage-paid card
indicating corrections in work or hone location. As a further ac-
curacy check, major employers in Commuter Computer's program are
mailed information on their employees in the master file and are
asked to update the information.
o Dial-In Services. The dial-in service provides a means for individuals
to locate carpooling partners. When a potential carpooler phones, a
receptionist completes a questionnaire. The questionnaire is coded
and processed, and the person is mailed a computerized match list
within the next two working days. Individuals who need immediate
assistance are hand-matched and contacted by phone the same day.
11-16
I
I
o Organizational Services. This element of the program assists I
employers in promoting ridesharing services for their employees. H
Commuter Ccmputer field representatives promote ridesharing services
at organizations with 100 or more employees, which are required to •
file an APCD emergency traffic abatement plan. Conmuter Ccmputer . |
also assists organizations with fewer than 100 employees in organ- •
izing rideshare programs, and also distributes mail-in applications • _
for new employees at organizations maintaining an ongoing ridesharing I
program. •
o Vanpooling and Subscription Bus. Commuter Ccmputer assists in- •
dividuals, employers and private firms in developing, promoting, |
and implementing vanpcol programs.
In .1980, these activities were conducted at approximately the same •
level as in the previous year. The addition of the major employer ' *
accuracy check under candidate file maintenance was the only service
change. However, due to rising gasoline prices, Corcnuter Computer's •
services were used to a greater extent. •
local Jurisdictions
IMost local jurisdictions continued implementation of their ridesharing
activities at the- same level as the previous year. The City and County
of San Diego did institute several new programs. The City began op- •
erating an employee vanpool which doubles as a shuttle between three ™
City work sites during the day. In October, the County began running
two employee vanpools between two East County suburbs and the downtown • •
Courthouse area. The County's vans average 84 vehicle'miles a day with 1
an average occupancy of 12 persons. A parking fee refund of $10.00
per month is also offered to Courthouse employees in lieu of providing —
employee parking spaces. This is considered to be a carpool incentive, I
since by carpooling the full cost of parking can be recovered. ™
Two of the air quality demonstration projects described elsewhere in •
this report deal with ridesharing. The City will be implementing an I
aggressive Centre City ridesharing program with employers in multi-
occupant buildings, and the County will be expanding its employee •
ridesharing program. I
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
SANDAG1s work program .includes a task to improve Ccnmuter Computer's •
matching service by automating address coding and using a street network
to more accurately estimate distances between carpool candidates. •
Initial work on this task has begun but the final product is behind |
schedule.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF 1980 RFP 1
Currently, the only measure of carpcoling activity is available on an
annual basis is the number of persons assisted by Ccnrnuter Computer. •
From the number of persons assisted, estimates are made of the number |
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
n-17
of persons who go on to form carpools. Carpool break-up rate assump-
tions are used to estimate how many are carpooling at any point in
time. For every two Canmuter Computer-formed carpools, one additional
carpool is assumed to be formed outside of Canmuter Computer's program.
Finally, the number of persons vanpooling and using subscription bus,
which is recorded by Canmuter Computer, is added to estimate the total
number of new ridesharers in the region. The detailed computations
are documented in the appendix. The table below summarizes riding
activity as of December 1979 and December 1980. Ihe total number of
rideshares increased by about 3,000 persons, or 24 percent during
the last year.
Change
Measure 1979 1980 1979 to 1980
Commuter Computer + 7,631 + 8,941 + 17%
assisted Carpcolers
Total Carpcolers +11,446 +13,411 + 17%
.Total Vanpoolers + 119 + 369 +210%
Total Buspoolers + 863 +1,572 + 82%
Total Ridesharers +12,421 +15,352 + 24%
VMT - 0.57% - 0.72% - 26%
Vehicle Trips - 0.16% - 0.18% - 16%
RHC (Tons/Day) - 0.31 - 0.33 -6.5%
CO (ions/Day) - 3.04 - 3.31 -2.7%
The number of new ridesharers is converted into travel, and emission
reductions using procedures in the Revised RAQS, as o.utlined in the
appendix. The resulting travel and emission reductions for 1979
and 1980 are shown in the table above. Ihe percentage reduction in
vehicle trips is less than the percentage increase in ridesharers,
while the percentage reduction in VMT is greater than the percentage
increase in ridesharers. This is because the number of vanpoolers
and buspoolers grew faster than the number of carpoolers. Vanpools
and buspools are generally more effective in reducing VMT and less
effective in reducing trips as compared to carpools. Emission
reductions are less than travel reductions, due to the fact that
vehicles are becoming cleaner over time which diminishes the
emission reduction effectiveness of travel reductions.
In 1980, SANDAG began the Regional Vehicle Occupancy and Classification
Study program. This program will give a measure of the overall change
in peak-period vehicle occupancy from year to year, which will provide
a more comprehensive picture of vehicle occupancy changes than does the
Commuter Computer measure. Since cnly one year's data is now available,
the vehicle occupancy measure will not be useful for determining RFP
until the 1981 report.
RFP STATUS
The table below compares the 1980 ridesharing targets with the measures
of ridesharing activity during 1980.
I
11-18 I
1980 Target 1980 Measure Difference |
Ridesharers +10,000 • +15,352 +54% •
VOT -0.47% -0.72% --52% •
Vehicle Trips -0.13% -0.18% -38% ' ™
RHC (Tons/Day) -0.22 -0.33 -50%
00 (Tons/Day) . -2.23 -3.31 -48% •
As can be seen, the targets for 1980 were exceeded by about 50 percent. •
Thus, based on the information now available, it appears that progress |
is being maintained and the tactic is proving to be more effective than
anticipated. _
It should be noted that the Revised RAQS set modest targets for ride- •
sharing and while the targets are being exceeded by 50 percent, this
only snounts to about a 0.1 ton/day difference in RHC emissions. In •
the 1982 RAQS, it will be necessary for ridesharing to play a more E
important role in reducing emissions. Therefore, efforts to improve
and upgrade the region's ridesharing program continue to be important. »
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-19
T-5, EXPANDED TRANSIT
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
This tactic is aimed at diverting automobile users to fixed-route
public transit, primarily by increasing the level of transit service.
Improvements such as more frequent service, more extensive area coverage,
and greater use of express service are proposed, which would make transit
more competitive with the automobile and attract choice riders (persons
who are not dependent on transit for transportation and would otherwise
be driving their cars). Broader actions such as the use of employer in-
centives to encourage transit use and subdivision design to facilitate
transit service also are encouraged.
MPLEMENTATICN RESPONSIBILITIES
Service improvements called for in T-5 are implemented through the
seven fixed-route public transit operators in the region: San Diego
Transit Corporation (SDTC), North County Transit District (NCTD),
South Coast Organization Operating Transit (SCOOT), National City
Transit (NOT), County Transit. System (CTS), Strand Express Agency
(SEA), and San Diego Trolley, Inc. In addition,, the Metropolitan
Transit Development Board (MTDB) is a transit agency responsible
for transit planning in the southern half of the County and for
constructing light rail transit (LRT).
SDTC serves the City of San Diego and several southern and eastern
suburbs. SDTC is the largest of the transit operators, carrying about
80 percent of total regional transit passengers. NCTD provides local.
and inter-city service to the rapidly growing North San Diego County
communities. NCTD is the region's second largest operator and carries
about 17 percent of total passengers. SCOOT, NCT and CTS provide
local service to Chula Vista, National City and East County communities.
NCT and CTS are new transit operators which have been formed since
adoption of T-5. NCT and CTS service was previously provided by
SDTC. During 1980, the cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach formed
a joint powers agency (SEA) to provide express transit service between
Imperial Beach and North Island Naval Air Station. San Diego Trolley,
Inc., is another new transit operator created during 1980 to run the
San Diego Trolley light rail service from San Ysidro to Centre City
San Diego.
The role of local governments in implementing transit includes promoting
transit use by their employees, promoting the use of transit incentives
by private employers, and making land use decisions which support transit.
In addition, Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are apportioned
to local jurisdictions, giving them discretion in deciding the level of
transit service to be provided with TDA ironey.
11-20
RFP TARGETS
2. Construction of transit centers on or immediately adjacent
to freeways;
I
I
IThe adopted transit tactic calls for near-term service expansions through
1983 based on the 1978 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). —
Long-range service improvement objectives were established for the years •
1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 by combining elements of MTDB's Low and Medium •
Capital Cost Bus System Plans and proposing comparable levels of service
for the NCTD service area. The service improvement objectives adopted •
in T-5 are listed in the table on the following page. I
j
T-5 proposes moderate, steady service expansion through the year 2000. •
Service is to be expanded at a rate faster than population growth, so •
that "real" service improvements will result. The tactic also proposes:
1. Increased use of bus-on-freeway express service; . V
3. Increased service in corridors not oriented toward Centre City
San Diego, thereby improving regionwide transit accessibility; —
4. Implementation of the .MTDB light rail line from Centre City ~
to San Ysidro.
the transit support tactics discussed later in this report is increased
transit ridership. The Revised RAQS projects 1985 ridership to increase «
by 40 percent above 1978 levels and 2000 ridership by 166 percent. The I
ridership increases are in turn converted into vehicle trip, VMT and
emission reduction targets, as sunmarized in the table on the following
page. •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T-5, EXPANDED TRANSIT
RFP TARGETS
Target
Annual Revenue Miles of
Service (Millions)
Annual Revenue Passengers
(Millions)
Change in Vehicle Trips
Change in VMT
Change in RHC Emissions
1979
22
37
0
0
0
1980
25
39
-0.12%
-0.11%
-0.07
1983
28
45
-0.25%
-0.24%
-0.12
1985
30
51
-0.37%
-0.37%
-0.14
1990
39
69
-0.66%
-0.69%
-0.24
1995
52
85.5
-1.01%
-1.03%
-0.35
2000
57
96
-1.02%
-1.04%
-0. 37
(Tons/Day)
Change in CO Emissions
(Tons/Day)
-0.68 -1.17 -1.38 -2.22 -3.64 -4.03
' ro
11-22
1980 H4PLEMENTATICN ACTIVITIES
ANNUAL REVENUE
MILES OF SERVICE
Change in Service
Operator
SDTC
NCTD
SCOOT
CTS
NCT
SEA
FY78
13,036,731
4,854,700
483,600
—
—
—
FY79
11,085,172
6,041,182
467,500
—
—
—
FY80
11,657,999
6,831,637
500,215
553,601
277,393
21,890
78 to 79
-15.0%
+24.4%
- 3.3%
—
—
—
79 to 80
- 5.2%
+13.1%
+ 7.0%
—
—• —
78 to 80
-10.6%
+40.7%
+ 3.4%
—
—• —
I
I
I
The period covered by this report (FY1980) was a time of modest growth
in regionwide transit service. -In FY79, Proposition 13 related budget •
cuts forced service reductions of about 4 percent. However, in FY80, • |
additional transit revenues became available, enabling cutback service
to be restored and service to be expanded by 8 percent above 1978 levels. •
The following table summarizes changes in transit service since 1978, •
the base year of the Revised RAQS: ~
I
I
1
I
Total ia,375,031 17,593,854 19,847,735 - 4.2% + 12.8% + 8.0% "
While transit service has increased overall since 1978, transit service I
provided by SDTC has declined. During FY79, SDTC transferred a number
of routes to other transit operators and cutback service. Service changes m
during FY80 largely consisted of reinstating service that had been cut back •
the previous year. Thus, in SDTC's service area, there have been no sig-
nificant service improvements (reduced headways, expanded area coverage,
or additional express service) since adoption of the Revised RAQS. I
The age of the bus fleet is another important aspect of the quality of
transit service since it affects both the attractiveness and reliability •
of transit service. SDTC has had little success in obtaining federal |
funds for bus purchases. During FY80, the only buses added to the fleet
were 49 1957 buses which pushed up the average age of the fleet by about _
three years. SDTC has purchased 60 new buses to be delivered in several •
months, which will enable some of the oldest equipment to be retired. •
ISDTC's fares remained relatively constant in 1980. Bus fares increased
from $0.50 to $0.60, while express fares stayed the same at $0.75.
In contrast to SDTC, NCTD has experienced a steady service expansion of •
24 percent in FY79 and 13 percent in FY80, or a 40 percent overall in- •
crease since 1978. In looking at routing and headway changes since 1978,
it is not readily apparent where this 40 percent increase in service has
occurred. The major service improvement in FY80 was the addition of two I
new local routes and two new express routes. NCTD also temporarily op- •
erated several old SDTC routes during FY79 and FY80 which have subsequently
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-23
been taken over by CTS. This accounts for a portion of the reported 40
percent service increase, and may present an overly optimistic picture
of NCTD's growth. As with SDTC, NCTD was unable to obtain any new buses
during FY80 and, consequently, the age of its bus fleet went up by a year.
NCTD does have 64 buses on order, which should be arriving in several
months. NCTD raised bus fares from $0.35 to $0.50 in FY80.
Of the smaller operators (SCOOT, CTS, NCT and SEA), only SEA is providing
any major new service. CTS and NCT have made only minor adjustments to
service that was previously provided by SDTC. SCOOT service has remained
relatively constant since 1978.
MTDB's San Diego Trolley from Centre City San Diego to San Ysidro is
the largest transit improvement project in the region. The San Diego
Trolley, scheduled to begin service in 1981, will significantly upgrade ,
transit service in the region's most heavily patronized transit corridor.
Construction of the trolley continued in 1980. It is currently within
budget and is only slightly behind schedule.
local Jurisdictions
One of the transit actions reconmended to local jurisdictions is pro-
viding incentives to local government employees in order to increase
employees' use of transit and to serve as a model for private employers.
Fare reimbursement and flexible work hours were suggested as possible
transit incentives. A number of local jurisdictions allow flexibility
in vrork hours for transit users; however, the County of San Diego is the
only local government to offer fare subsidies. The County offers free
bus passes for a portion of its "Courthouse" employees in downtown San
Diego.
Local jurisdictions also were asked to adopt project-level measures
in new developments which would encourage transit use. These measures
would include providing convenient access from subdivisions to existing
or planned transit stops and designing street layouts to accommodate
transit service. In FY79, SANDAG developed a model subdivision ordinance
amendment to assist local jurisdictions in implementing project-level
measures. The ordinance requires tentative subdivision maps to be
referred to transit agencies for their comments on the need for design
changes or additional measures. The ordinance is not in place in any
jurisdiction, although several North County cities informally refer
subdivision maps to NCTD for comments.
FUTURE mPLEMEM&TION ACTIVITIES
Each year a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is
prepared which identifies the projects to be undertaken over the next
five years within projected funding levels. The 1981 RTIP was adopted
in March and is the third RTIP since the adoption of the Revised RAQS.
The 1981 RTIP contains the roost current projections of future transit
improvements for the FY82 to FY86 time period.
11-24
The 1981 RTIP proposes the following service improvements over the
next six years:
ANNUAL REVENUE
MILES OF SERVICE
Operator FY80 FY86
SDTC
NCTD
SCOOTMTDB
CTSNCT
SEA
Total 19,847,735 25,779,000
*Partial year
11,657,999
6,831,637
500,215
—558,601
277,393
21,890*
11,947,000
8,240,000
564,000
3,100,000
1,413,000
287,000
228,000
Change in Service
80 to 86
+ 2.5%
+ 20.6%
+ 12.8%
+152.9%
+ 3.5%
29.9%
An overall 30 percent increase in service is expected. The most dramatic
service improvements will result from MTDB's light rail transit projects.
The RTIP shows the San Diego Trolley beginning operation in FY82 and in-
cludes $24.3 million for upgrading the South Bay line. A second 17.2
mile light rail line running from Centre City San Diego to the City of
El Cajon is also programmed in the RTTP and is scheduled to begin service
in FY86. Among the bus operators, CTS has the most ambitious plans for
increasing service, while SDTC expects the least amount of growth. CTS
plans on tripling its present service, primarily by adding express routes
to its existing local service. The RTIP also programs money for the pur-
chase of about 55 new buses a year. Most of these buses would go towards
replacing existing buses which should significantly upgrade the quality
of the bus fleet.
Two events which have taken place since adoption of the RTTP might
lower the rate of growth in transit service described above. First,
the RTIP assumes federal operating subsidies will continue to increase
as they have in the past; however, recent federal budget proposals
call for phasing out these subsidies by FY85. Secondly, the California
.Transportation Commission recently gave the MTDB east line extension
a low priority compared to other projects in the state, which could
delay completion of the project beyond FY86.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF 1980 RFP
The most direct measure of the success of expanded transit is the number
of passengers using the system as shown in the following table for the
years 1978 through 1980:
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-25
ANNUAL REVENUE PASSENGERS
Change in Eldership
Operator
SDTC
NCTD
SCOOT
CTS
NCT
SEA
FY78
29,920,024
4,631,274
380,654
—
—
—
FY79
27,282,980
5,643,607
401,415
—
—
—
FY80
27,913,111
7,163,539
491,698
299,485
185,889
17,189
78 to 79
- 8.8%
+21.9%
+ 5.4%
—
—
—
79 to 80
+ 2.3%
+26.9%
+22.5%
—
—
—
.78 to 80
- 6.7%
+54.7%
+29.2%
—
—
—
TOtal 34,931,952 33,328,002 36,070,911 - 4.6% + 8.2% + 3.3%
In general, the changes in ridership shown above parallel the changes in
service shown earlier, with SDTC experiencing a drop in ridership and NCTD
a large ridership increase.
In comparing service improvements with ridership increases, one disturbing
finding is that since 1978 transit service has increased by 8.0 percent,
while ridership has increased only 3.3 percent. In a time of rapidly
increasing auto operating costs, this loss in productivity is difficult
to justify. It is apparently due to the fact that the region's roost pro-
ductive operator, SDTC, has been forced to reduce its system, while less
productive operators have been able to expand.
The RTIP projects ridership increases associated with the programmed
service improvements and provides a current picture of expected near-
term ridership changes. The 1981 KEEP projects the following ridership
increases:
ANNUAL REVENUE PASSENGERS
Change in Ridership
Operator
snrc
NCTD
SCOOT
MTDS
CTS
NCT
SEA
FY80
27,913,111
7,163,539
491,698
—299,485
185,889
17,189*
FY86
27,951,000
8,680,000
736,000
8,114,000
1,555,000
273,000
184,000
80 to 86
+ 0.1%
+ 21.2%
+ 49.7%
—+420.6%
+ 46.9%
—
Total
*Partial year
36,070,911 47,497,000 + 31.7%
11-26
I
I
I
The monitored ridership changes for FY78 through FY80 and projected •
ridership changes through FY86 are converted into travel and emission ™
reductions in order to determine the significance of the ridership
changes. The calculations are contained in the appendix and the •
results for FY79 through FY86 are presented in the table on the • •
next page.
1980 RFP STATUS
The table on the next page compares service improvement and tactic
effectiveness targets established in the Revised RAQS with measures I
of service improvements and tactic effectiveness. The measures for •
FY79 and FY80 are based on monitored data, and the measures for FY81
through FY86 are based on 1981 KEEP projections. m
In FY80, as in FY79, the region fell short of meeting transit targets
and transit RFP was not maintained. While transit service and ridership ^
increased from FY79 to FY80, the targets also increased and the gap •
between targeted and actual performance did not lessen appreciably. W
In FY80, 7.5 percent fewer passengers were carried than were targeted.
This puts FY80 ridership at the level assumed under base conditions •
(120,000 daily passengers). Thus, no reductions in travel or emissions H
were achieved.
Furthermore, the 1981 RTIP indicates that over the next few years the I
currently anticipated growth in transit ridership will fail to keep pace *
with ridership increases called for in the Revised RAQS, and the gap be-
tween targets and actual performance will widen. The situation may even I
be more pessimistic since, as noted earlier, the 1981 RTIP probably over- I
estimates the growth in ridership.
Under the Revised RAQS, emission reductions "from expanded transit £
do not play a .meaningful role in achieving air quality standards.
Therefore, the fact that ridership targets are not being met is
not particularly significant in determining progress. For example, •
the shortfall between targeted and actual RHC emissions in FY80 is •
0.06 tons per day out of the approximately 100 ton per day reduction
needed to achieve the standard. However, it is important to meet the •
Revised RAQS targets if transit is to contribute more substantial p
emission reductions in the 1982 RAQS, as will probably be necessary.
I
I
I
I
I
T-5 EXPANDED TRANSIT
RFP STATUS
Measure 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Annual Revenue Miles
of Service (Millions)
Annual Revenue
Passengers
(Millions)
VMT
RHC Emissions
(Tons/Day)
CO Emissions
(lions/Day)
Target
Actual
Difference
Target
Actual
Difference
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
22.535
17.594
-21.9%
36.000
33.328
- 7.4%
+ 0. 00%
+0.11%
+0.00
+0.08
+0.0
+0.72
24.756
19.848
-19.8%
39.000
36.071
- 7.5%
-0.12%
+0.00%
-0.07
+0.00
-0.68
+0.00
25.814
20.760
-19.6%
41.000
37.811
- 9.2%
-0.17%
-0.04%
-0.10
-0.03
-0.93
-0.26
26.872
21.672
-19.4%
43.000
39.551
- 9.2%
-0.21%
-0.09%
-0.12
-0.06
-1.06
-0.52
27.930
23.247
-16.8%
45.000
41.468
- 9.2%
-0.25%
-0.13%
-0.12
-0.07
-1.17
-0.62
29.041
23.298
-19.8%
48.000
42.054
-12.4%
-0.32%
-0.12%
-0.14
-0.05
-1.31
-0.49
30.152
23.739
-21.3%
51.000
43.081
-15.5%
-0.37%
-0.13%
-0.14
-0.04
-1.38
-0.40
31.930
25.779
-19.3%
54.600
47.497
-13.0%
-0.44%
-0.23%
-0.16
-0.10
-1.62
-0.93
IN3
—J
11-28
I
I
.The lack of funding is the greatest impediment to improved transit •
service. The following table estimates the additional operating •
resources needed to meet the FY86 ridership target.
FY86 ANNUAL REVENUE PASSENGERS
Adjusted Additional •
Operator 1981 RTIP RACjS Target Shortfall Operating Revenue
SUIC 27,951 37,063 6,176 $13,934 §
NCTD 8,680 9,344 450 958
MTEB 8,114 5,648 00 —
SCOOT 737 925 128 433 . I
CTS 1,581 680 , 0 0 *
NCT 273 756 327 1,519
SEA 184 184 0 ; 0 •
Total 47,519 54,600 7,081 $16,844
The shortfall of $17 million in operating revenue cannot be met through
farebox revenues nor can state and federal governments be relied upon
to increase transit spending. This means that if the region wants im- I
proved transit service, it appears likely the citizens will have to be •
taxed accordingly to pay for it. Some possible revenue sources include
reinstituting the. property tax surcharge for transit in the City of •
San Diego, imposing a \$ sales tax increase for transit, and using •. |
general funds to help pay .for transit.
Some type of metro-area transit authority is also essential if transit •
service is to be provided where it will do the most good. The present *
situation which fragments authority among seven transit operators and
.channels transit money through individual local jurisdictions encourages •
uncoordinated and unproductive transit service. In an era of limited V
transit resources, the region cannot afford unproductive service.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
11-29
T-7, ENCOURAGE BICYCLE TRAVEL
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
Bicycle travel includes short trips to shopping, schools, work, and
recreational facilities. With proper facility design and educational
programs, an increasing number of people can be lured from their auto-
mobiles, the result being less roadway congestion, improved air quality,
and increased energy savings.
This tactic proposes a much more extensive bicycle system than currently
exists through development of a regional bicycle route system, community
oriented routes, bicycle feeder systems to public transit, and employer
incentives and facilities. Employer-provided facilities include bicycle
parking, connections with express bus service, and showers and locker
roans. Extensive educational and promotional programs also are emphasized
in the tactic.
D^PLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Implementation responsibilities are shared among the cities, County of
San Diego, CALTRANS, and a number of single-purpose agencies which have
construction of nonraotorized facilities as part of their programs.
RFP TARGETS
Emission reduction targets for this tactic are (tons/day):
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
RHC
CO
NOx
0.05
0.30
0.02
0.15
1.04
0.07
0.27
2.06
0.15
0.28
2.29
0.17
0.32
2.69
0.25
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The following actions were taken to implement this tactic during 1980:
o The SANDAG Bicycle Facilities Committee prioritized $570,000
in projects funded through the Transportation Development Act
(TEA).
o Normotorized circulation plan studies were started by the Cities
of Chula Vista El Cajon, La Mesa and Lemon Grove.
o Continued TDA funding was made available to the region's transit
system for improvement to the bus bike rack system.
11-30
o The City of San Diego Bicycle Safety and Promotion Program was
initiated.
City of Vista
Segments of San Luis -Key Bike loop $35,000
City of Oceanside
Jamacha Boulevard $44,000
County of San Diego
I
I
o Additional planning progress was made on the San Diego Bay Route •
Bikeway. <•
1
o TDA funding was made available for the purchase of secure bicycle ' ^
storage facilities by local agencies. I
o The SANDAG Bicycle Facilities Ccramittee updated the nonmotorized
element of the five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program. •
o A Bicycle Saturation Project for the Pacific Beach Community was
initiated as an air quality demonstration project. •
The following nonmotorized projects were constructed in 1980:
o Vista Way/South Santa Fe Bike Route $36,000 •
I
Oilman. Drive $77,000 —
City of San Diego I
•
o Bicycle Storage Facilities $20,000
CALTRANS M
o Segments of Bay Route Bikeway $300,000
City of San Diego
o Via de la Valle $29,000 I
County of San Diego
o Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge $20,000 |
University of California, San Diego
In excess of $600,000 was spent on nonmotorized programs and projects '
in the San Diego region in 1980. During the year, City of San Diego
planning staff members completed evaluations of model ordinances •
(including bicycle parking and storage facility ordinance) developed |
earlier by SANDAG staff. Public hearings before the City Planning
Commission were to be scheduled by mid-1981. ^
In February of 1981, the County of San Diego took action to facilitate ™
bicycle usage by amending the County's Zoning Ordinance to require
bicycle parking and storage in major new buildings or additions to •
buildings at which parking requirements are already in effect. Private - •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
. 11-31
developers also included bike storage and associated facilities in the
designs of several new office complexes in the region as incentives
to lease the new structures.
Monitoring activities, in terms of bicycle volume counts and storage
facility usage, were expanded during 1980 by CALTRANS and SAND&G, and
Commuter Computer's data processing procedures were revised to provide
data on commuter bicyclists at places of employment.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF 1980 RFP
About 25 miles of bicycle projects were completed in 1980, although the
travel impact of these and other facilities remains largely an unanswered
question. Systematic monitoring of nonmotorized travel by CALTRANS and
SANEAG is in its first year of operation; additional monitoring during
future years will be needed before accurate travel impacts can be
calculated.
RFP EVALUATION
Facility construction and monitoring activities proceeded on schedule
during 1980. Consequently, although emission reduction impacts of
this tactic can not be quantified, implementation is assumed to be
at or near the RFP line.
11-32
T-14, TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS
• IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
Traffic flow improvements are implemented by local jurisdictions
and CALTRANS.
RFP TARGETS
Target 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
I
I
I
I
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
This tactic smoothes the flow of traffic and maintains existing average
automobile travel speeds on arterial streets through relatively low-cost —
transportation system management techniques. Emission benefits are due I
to reductions in idling time at traffic signals and at points of traffic •
congestion. Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions also decrease as
speeds increase, due to the more complete combustion of fuel at higher . •
speeds. |
Traffic flow improvements may have some adverse air quality impacts. •
Nitrogen oxide emissions increase as speed increases. Travel time •
reductions resulting from traffic flow improvements may also induce
more travel and offset any emission reductions.
I
I
IThe primary objective of T-14 is to maintain existing average travel
speeds. This is expected to prevent a deterioration in speeds of about
twD miles per hour by the year 2000 and to have the following emission •
impacts: •
I
Change in RHC Emissions (Tons/Day) -0.28 -0.49 -0.63 - 0.93 - 0.97
Change in CO Emissions (Tons/Day) -3.02 -6.16 -8.05 -11.87 -12.63 •
INo information exists on the traffic flow improvements implemented during
the last year; however, most jurisdictions recognize the importance of
minimizing traffic congestion and have been active in making improvements. I
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) contains a listing J[
of traffic flow improvement projects programed for construction during
the next five years. The following major projects are programmed in the ^
1981 RTIP: •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-33
Jurisdiction Project Year
City of San Diego CBD Master Traffic Signal Control 1982
System
City of San Diego Master Traffic Signal System on 1983
Clairenont Mesa Boulevard
City of San Diego Pacific Beach Master Traffic Signal 1983
Control System
City of San Diego Coordination of Signal System on 1983
Lake Murray Boulevard
City of Cceanside Traffic Signal System Interconnection 1983-84
on Hill Street
The computerized master signal control system in San Diego's CBD has
been delayed by a year from its programmed date in the 1979 RTIP.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RTF
No measures of systeimvide speed changes are available for 1980. Changes
in average regional travel speeds are difficult to determine since speeds
vary widely from one location to the next depending on individual roadway
and traffic conditions. Travel tijne studies which are done every 5 to 10
years are the only available method of measuring travel speeds. These
studies involve driving_.a survey vehicle over the freeway and major
arterial system at the same pace as other traffic and recording travel
times. The last travel time study, undertaken in 1976/ showed that a
modest reduction in overall peak-period travel speeds had occurred from
1966 to 1976.
RFP STATUS
Given the lack of any quantifiable measures for T-14, progress is
difficult to assess. The fact that jurisdictions have made traffic
flow improvements during the last year and the fact that local juris-
dictions are concerned about relieving traffic congestion probably
means that progress is being maintained. Nevertheless, there is a
shortage of Federal Aid Urban money and local general fund money,
which could slow future implementation of this tactic.
The potential adverse effects of T-14 due to induced travel may mean
that not maintaining progress in implementing this tactic is less
critical than a lack of progress in other tactics.
11.-34
T-21, FLEX-TIME AND STAGGERED WORK HOURS
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
This tactic includes staggered hours, a situation in which subgroups of
a work force operate on different fixed schedules/ or flex-tine, in
which an individual employee determines his or her own work hours within
certain limits.
T-21 was adopted as a support tactic for T-2, Expanded Ridesharing, and
T-5, Expanded Transit. Flex-time allows employees to adjust work schedules
to accommodate scheduled transit service or carpcoling with persons having'
different work hours. Flex-time and staggered work hours allow more effec-
tive use of existing transit service by spreading peak demand and by
increasing the carrying capacity of the transit system. Likewise, T-21 can
be considered a support tactic for T-14, Traffic Flow Improvements, since
spreading peak demand can significantly relieve traffic congestion. Spread-
ing morning emissions over a longer period also may decrease peak pollutant
concentrations, although this is uncertain. A potentially adverse impact
of variable work schedules is that carpools may be more difficult to form
if work hours differ widely.
IMPLEKET7TATIC3N RESPONSIBILITIES
Most local jurisdictions are committed to allowing staggered or flex-
time work hours for public employees, and to encouraging such programs
among private employers. Commuter Computer, whose representatives work
with employers, also plays an implementation role. Ultimately, the
responsibility for implementing flex-time or staggered work hours lies
with each employer, private or public.
RFP TARGETS
No emission reduction targets were established for this tactic since the
tactic's effects on ridesharing, transit, vehicular activity and
emissions were included in the ridesharing and transit tactic targets.
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Nearly all local jurisdictions in the region allow flexible or staggered
work hours for public employees, either as formal jurisdictional policies or
on an informal basis for individual workers in those smaller jurisdictions
with a limited number of employees. These policies and practices continued
during 1980. The public sector did little during the year to encourage
variable work schedules among private employers. Some private employers did
initiate such programs during the year, but the extent of participation by
the private sector is unknown.
CUMTTIFIABLE MEASURES OF 1980 RFP
No quantified data on this tactic are available* Impacts of staggered work
hours and flex-time are inclusive in the emission reduction targets for the
ridesharing, transit and traffic flow improvement tactics.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-35
RFP EVALUATION
In the absence of specific emission reduction targets and quantifiable RFP
measures, it is impossible to state with certainty that RFP is being main-
tained in implementing this tactic. With the exception of the transit
tactic, the progress reported in other tactics which are supported by this
measure may be attributable, at least in part, to implementation of this
tactic. Such a conclusion, however, is subjective. A monitoring program to
measure the travel impacts of staggered and flexible work hours has
received, and likely will continue to receive, a low priority for available
manpower and fiscal resources.
11-36
I
I
I
T-22, PREFERENTIAL PARKING FOR RIDESHARERS
RFP TARGETS
ITACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this ridesharing support tactic is to reserve the more
convenient parking spaces, at those locations which have significant —
amounts of parking, for use by employees or students who rideshare. I
Reduced walking times from parking to final destination and the *
increased convenience of having an assured parking space provide a
modest incentive to rideshare. Also, reserved rideshare parking in- •
creases the visibility of ridesharing as an alternative to driving • B
alone. Another aspect of preferential rideshare parking is a reduction
in parking rates at pay lots for ridesharers. mm
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES ™
Local governments, which have authority to regulate land use, have I
primary implementation responsibility. Commuter Computer representa- ' •
tives encourage and assist existing employers to set up preferential
parking programs. SANDAG's role is to assist local jurisdictions •
with implementation. I
INo quantifiable targets exist for this tactic. The tactic's effect on
ridesharing, vehicular activity, and emissions are included in targets
for T-2, Expanded Ridesharing. •
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The Revised RAQS implementation program included several actions to I
establish preferential parking for both local government employees
and private employees. Local governments were asked to establish a
preferential parking program for their employees which would serve V
as a model for private employers. Three actions were recommended: P
1. Provide free parking for ridesharers. The City of San Diego is •
the only jurisdiction which charges a fee for employee parking I
and is the only jurisdiction in which the provision of free ride-
sharing parking is applicable. The City does have preferential
parking rates for ridesharers. Registered rideshare vehicles •
are given a $.25 per person daily reimbursement upon leaving •
the employee parking structure. A four-person carpcol would
recover the entire monthly employee parking free of $18.00. •
2. Eliminate subsidized parking for non-ridesharers. To date, sub-
sidized parking has not been eliminated by any jurisdiction. Most «
jurisdictions did not commit to implementing this action. In those •
jurisdictions which did commit to the action, employee contracts ™
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-37
have tended to prevent the immediate elimination of subsidized
parking. Both the City and County of San Diego have long-range
plans to charge employees the full cost of parking.
3. Designate preferential parking for ridesharers. The County of
San Diego designates preferential parking spaces for its employees
who rideshare. Since a preferential parking space program is only
feasible where parking is scarce or where large lots exist, the
City of San Diego is the only other jurisdiction in which this
action would apply. The City is developing plans to provide
preferential parking spaces; however, implementation does not
appear to be imminent.
This Revised RAQS implementation program also called for SANDAG to pre-
pare a model ordinance requiring private employers to provide incentives'
for their employees to rideshare. Cne of the local implementation com-
mitments was to consider adoption of the model ordiannce once it was
developed.
In 1979, SANDAG developed a model zoning ordinance amendment which
would require that preferential parking spaces be provided for rideshare
vehicles at new employment and school sites with 250 or more parking
spaces. The model ordinance was distributed to local governments in
August, 1979, and in September workshops were held with local staffs
to explain the ordinance and answer questions. No jurisdiction has
yet adopted the ordinance.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
The tactic's impacts on ridesharing, vehicular activity and emissions
have been included in T-2, Expanded Ridesharing.
A program to monitor the extent of preferential parking throughout the
region is being considered.
RFP STATUS
No significant progress was made in implementing this tactic during
the last year. The most important part of the tactic is the model zoning
ordinance amendment, but there appears to be no movement towards implementa-
tion of the ordinance by any jurisdiction. Implementation of preferential
parking for local jurisdiction employees has also been neglected. The City
and County of San Diego with their large work forces located in the CBD are
the key jurisdictions. Neither has a comprehensive employee parking program
which would encourage ridesharing and, in fact, both subsidize parking costs,
which encourages driving alone.
11-38
T-23, CARPOOL TOLL REDUCTION - CORCNADO BRIDGE
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
I
I
I
I
•The San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge (SR 75) is a 2. 1-mile toll bridge
connecting the cities of San Diego and Coronado. The purpose of this
tactic is to structure the bridge toll to provide reduced tolls for . •
carpools, on the premise that toll incentives for carpcolers will |
result in shifts from single-occupant automobiles to carpools.
This tactic is a support tactic for T-2, Ridesharing. , m
P1PLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES •
CALTRANS is responsible for implementation of this tactic.
RFP TARGETS I
Target objectives are included in T-2, Ridesharing. I
IOn January 1, 1980, CALTRANS converted from two-way to one-way toll
collection on the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge as a six-iionth demon-
stration project to determine the feasibility of permanent conversion •
to one-way toll collection. Double tolls are charged in the westbound |
direction to Coronado only, making the cost of a round trip across the
bridge the same as before the demonstration project began.
The regular auto toll is $1.20 for a round trip across the bridge. '
A 40-ticket commute book valid for two months is available for $14.00,
reducing the toll to $.70 per round trip. A special 40-ticket book for •
carpools with three or more ridesharers is available for $4.00, reducing |
the toll to $.20 per round trip.
Converting from two-way to one-way toll collection has not strengthened I
the incentive to rideshare; however, it has reduced traffic congestion *
in the eastbound direction and has led to more efficient operation. As
a result, one-way toll collection has been made permanent. •
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The California Transportation Coranission is scheduled to consider re- •
structuring the Coronado Bridge toll in 1981. The purpose of restructuring
the bridge toll would be two-fold: (1) to make tolls consistent statewide,
and (2) to provide a greater incentive to rideshare. SANDAG's position is •
that the $.70 commuter toll should be eliminated since it is in essence a •
subsidy to low-occupant, peak-period automobile users. Instead, a round
trip toll for all single-occupant vehicles of $1.00 and a toll for two •
or more person carpools of $.10 is recommended. Such a toll structure Q
I
• 11-39
• would increase the perceived difference between single-occupant vehicle
and carpcol costs and, at the same time, ease toll collection by mini-
m mizing the handling of charge.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
I CALTRANS periodically conducts vehicle occupancy counts on the Coronado
Bridge so that changes in ridesharing activity over time can be determined
T%ie fi~i11/-«ui'no \nahirOfi rvviTrw»nriiia<i hm7<a Vvaen oKQPT-i/e*"! cinrva 1 Q"7S •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following vehicle occupancies have been observed since 1978:
Vehicle Occupancy
Date Year Daily Peak Period
7/19 1978 1.56 1.25
8/22 - 8/24 1978 fy'A 1.31
8/29 - 8/31 1978 W& 1.31 .
10/10 - 10/12 1978 VA 1.30
10/25 1978 1.42 1.29
2/7 1979 1.44 1.30
4/25 1979 1.43 1.30
7/11 1979 1.59 1.36
10/24 1979 1.44 1.35
2/6 1980 1.46 1.35
4/23 1980 1.48 1.39
7/23 1980 1.46 1.38
10/22 1980 1.47 1.33
N/A - Not Available
Vehicle occupancy rates vary a great deal from observation to observation
and clear trends are difficult to establish. Nevertheless, it would appear
that peak-period vehicle occupancy has increased from around 1.30 in 1978-79
to' 1.35 in late 1979 and 1980. Daily vehicle occupancies have also increased
from about 1.42 to 1.46. Since there has been no change in the toll structure
which would account for the increase in ridesharing activity, it can probably
be attributed to rising gasoline prices.
It should also be noted that the peak-period vehicle occupancy on the
bridge is considerably higher than the peak-period vehicle occupancy of
1.29 typically observed elsewhere in the region.
RFP STATUS
The Revised RAGS does not call for specific actions, nor does it set
specific performance standards for this tactic. However, it is evident
that progress is being maintained given the observed increases in vehicle
occupancy on the bridge and the movement towards restructuring the existing
bridge tolls.
11-40
T-24, DEVELOP PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES
PURPOSE AND DEFINITION
I
I
I
IThis tactic is intended to support T-5, Expanded Transit, by providing
convenient auto access to transit. Park-and-ride facilities can take a
number of forms, including: . •
o Lots constructed at freeway interchanges where express bus
service exists. .
o Informal lots established at activity centers .(e.g., shopping "
centers, theaters or churches) which have excess parking available
and are served by transit. •
o Lots constructed at .stations along light rail transit lines or
high-occupancy vehicle lanes. _
o Lots constructed at transit centers. *
By providing effective auto access to line-haul transit routes, overall I
transit travel times are decreased and the convenience of transit is I
enhanced. Unfortunately, auto access trips negate a large part of the
emission reductions derived from transit; hence, implementation of this •
tactic has minimal air quality benefits. •
While T-24 was adopted as a transit support tactic, park-and-ride
facilities also support ridesharing by serving as common pick-up points I
and by reducing the circuity of travel involved in gathering passengers. •
Park-and-ride lots for ridesharing can, in most cases, be integrated
with those for transit, although facilities serving ridesharers need •
not be along transit routes. .
IIMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
No agency has sole responsibility for establishing park-and-ride
facilities in the region. 'Depending upon the project, CALTRANS, MTDB,
local jurisdictions, Commuter Computer, or a combination of these agencies •
are involved. The source of funds and type of project generally deter- |
mines which agencies are involved and which has primary responsibility.
Thus, MTDB would probably take the lead for lots at light rail transit «
(LRT) stations and at transit centers, CALTRANS for lots along freeways, •
and Commuter Computer for lots used primarily by ridesharers. In addition,
the cooperation of local jurisdictions is needed for projects using Trans-
portation Development Act (TDA) monies since these funds are apportioned V
to local jurisdictions. •
I
I
1•V
1•
1
• RFP TARGETS
1 1. -41
T-24 does not call for specific projects beyond those identified in the
1978 RTIP and listed in the table, below. Targets for this tactic in terms
of transit ridership increases,vehicular activity reductions and emission
reductions are included in Tactic T-5, Expanded Transit.
T-24, DEVELOP PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES
1
I
1 "
1
I
1
•
1
1
|
RFP TARGETS
location
Mira Mesa Boulevard at 1-15
San Diego (City)
Palm Avenue at SR 94
La Mesa
Center City Drive LRT Station
National City
24th Street LRT Station
National City
"H" Street LRT Station
Chula Vista
Palonar Street LRT Station
Chula Vista
Palm Avenue LRT Station
San Diego (City)
Iris Avenue/SR 117 LRT Station
San Diego (City)
San Ysidro LRT Station
San Diego City
TOTAL
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Iirplementation activities during
Number of Completion
Spaces Date
120 FY79
200-300 FY79
107 FY81
168 FY81
314 FY81
359 FY81
489 FY81
291 FY81
144 FY81
2,192-2,292
1980 focused on two areas — completing
lots associated with the San Diego Trolley and establishing park-and-ride
1
1
lots by CALTRANS.
Construction of lots at the seven trolley stations continued in 1980.
Construction is on schedule for completion in 1981.
11-42
I
I
Since 1977, Carrouter Computer and CALTRANS have been establishing.
park-and-ride lots. These lots are primarily for use by ridesharers •
(as opposed to fixed-route transit users) since they are located to |
provide convenient staging areas for ridesharing arrangements and roost
are not served by public transit. In order to maximize the nurrber of »
spaces provided, CALTRANS has attempted to minimize costs by establishing I
lots on unused property and making only low-cost improvements to the sites. • *
The following three types of lots are provided:
1. lots on private property. Commuter Computer contacts property owners I
with large parking lots in areas of interest and enters into agreements
with those willing to cooperate in allowing some of their spaces to be •
designated as rideshare spaces. CALTRANS signs and marks the spaces, •
maintains the spaces, and provides liability insurance.
2. Lots on local government property. CALTRANS enters into agreements •
with local governments to establish park-and-ride lots on unused •
public property. Improvements are generally minor, consisting of
grading, signing and fencing. CALTRANS also provides insurance •
and maintenance. |
3. Lots on state-owned rights-of-way. The state owns numerous parcels _
of unused land along highway rights-of-way. Where appropriate, I
CALTRANS converts these parcels into park-and-ride lots by making "
low-cost improvements.
CALTRANS1 park-and-ride lot program has accelerated since adoption of I
legislation in 1979 which formalized the role of CALTRANS in establishing
park-and-ride lots. CALTRANS has established the following park-and-ride •
facilities since 1978: I
Change •
1978 1979 1980 78-79 79-80 78-80 |
Park-and-Ride Sites 8 17 30 +112% + 76% + 275% •
Park-and-Ride Spaces I
. Private Property 125 212 300 + 70% + 42% + 1. .'% ™
Local Government 45 159 159 +253% + 0% + 253%
Property I
State-Owned Property 20 382 961 +1810% +152% +4705% 1
TOTAL 190 753 1,420 + 296% + 89% + 647% •
In addition to the park-and-ride facilities described above, San Diego
Transit Corporation has less formal arrangements for park-and-ride spaces •
at shopping centers. By establishing bus stops in shopping centers, per- •
mission is obtained to allow park-and-ride use, although no specific spaces
are marked. In 1980, about 300 such spaces were in use, which is the same •
as in 1979. |
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-43
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The 1981 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) programs money
for a continuing expansion of park-and-ride facilities. The CALTRANS
park-and-ride program is funded at $100,000 for FY82 through FY86 in
addition to the following facilities:
Facility Year
El Cajon Multinrodal Terminal FY82
lots associated with East Line Trolley FY86
Extension
Imperial Beach Park-and-Ride Lot FY84
Balboa Avenue/I-5 Transit Center FY84
Miramar Road/I-15 Transit Center FY86
The County of San Diego also recently began construction of the La Mesa
Park-and-Ride lot at SR 94 and Palm Avenue. This lot, originally scheduled
for completion in FY79 in the Revised RAQS, is now scheduled for completion
in the summer of 1981.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
Transit ridership, carpool formation, vehicular activity and emission
changes resulting from this tactic are included in tactics T-2 and T-5.
One measure of park-and-ride activity is available from Ccmmuter Computer,
which regularly monitors use of its parking spaces as follows:
Change
1978 1979 1980 78-79 79-80 78-80
Spaces in Use 159 531 925 +234% + 74% +482%
Percent of Spaces 84% 71% 65% - 15% - 8% - 23%
in Use
While the absolute number of spaces in use has increased since 1978,
given the dramatic increase in the number of park-and-ride spaces
created during this time period, the percent of spaces in use has
dropped somewhat.
RFP STATUS
Implementation of this tactic is ahead of schedule. Of the 2,200
park-and-ride spaces specifically identified in the Revised RAQS, only
the La Mesa Park-and-Ride Lot is behind schedule, and this project is
now under construction. In addition, the CALTRANS program has added
another 1,400 park-and-ride spaces beyond expected levels.
I
11-44
I
IV-25, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FOR TRANSIT I
I
PURPOSE AND DEFINITION
T-25 is a support tactic for T-5r Expanded Transit. Under this tactic, I
points of congestion are identified and eliminated through traffic engi-
neering measures such as bus turnouts or signal preemption for buses. M
Transit travel time savings and increased system reliability resulting •
from this tactic make transit more competitive with the automobile
and increase transit productivity.
IMPLH^ENTATICN RESPONSIBILITIES 1
In most cases, local jurisdictions have primary implementation respon- •
sibility since local Federal Aid Urban funds are used to construct these •
projects. Transit operators also have a major role in identifying problem
areas.
RFP TARGETS I
The Revised RAQS does not identify specific projects or performance •
targets for this tactic. Instead, a process is recommended for identi- |
fying congested areas, finding solutions and programming projects in
future Regional Transportation Improvement Programs. •
Targets for this tactic in terms of transit ridership increases, vehicular
activity reductions and onission reductions are included in T-5, Expanded
Transit. I
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
No information is available on specific traffic engineering projects jj
for improving transit travel times that were undertaken by local juris-
dictions in 1980. However, using SANDAG's Transit Passenger Counting _
Program data, San Diego Transit Corporation has begun a related program I
of identifying transit stops that can be eliminated. Eliminating certain ™
transit stops is an alternative method of achieving this tactic's objective,
increased transit operating speeds. •
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
Travel times between bus stops are collected as a part of SANDAG's I
Transit Passenger Counting Program, which enables operating speeds to *
be monitored. The Passenger Counting Program is now in its second year
of operation. The table below compares monitored speeds for 1979 and I
1980 based on a sampling of routes that have been counted in both years. •
No 1979 data is available for National City Transit since it is a new
operator. •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-45
TRANSIT OPERATING SPEEDS (MPH)
Change
Operator 1979 1980 1979 to 1980
SDK 15.53 15.63
NCTD 20.20 20.36
SCOOT 19.15 . 18.00
CTS 21.25 21.88
Total 17.67 17.75 +0.4%
The table shows that between 1979 and 1980 transit operating speeds
essentially remained unchanged.
RFP STATUS
The most important aspect of this tactic is setting up a process of
identifying problem areas and working with local jurisdictions in
implementing improvement projects. Sere progress has been made in
identifying problem areas as transit operators are beginning to make
use of Passenger Counting Data to analyze system performance. However,
little progress has been made in getting local jurisdictions to carry
out traffic engineering projects to correct problem areas. This will
probably continue to be a problem since money for traffic engineering
improvements falls short of needed revenues.
11-46
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION '
No information is available on the extent to which on-street parking
has been eliminated in 1980.
RFP EVALUATION
I
I
T-26, REDUCED ON-STREET PARKING IN I
COmERCIAL AND SERVICE .DISTRICTS
I
I
On-street parking in congested business districts can adversely affect
transit and bicycling by restricting traffic flow. T-26, a support «
tactic to transit and bicycling, encourages the elimination of on-street I
parking in selected areas to improve transit travel times and. provide ~
space for bicycle lanes.
IIMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
Local jurisdictions control on-street parking and have primary implemen- •
tation responsibility. Transit operators are responsible for identifying •
problem areas.
I
I
RFP TARGETS
No targets exist for this tactic. The effects of the tactic on transit
ridership, bicycling, vehicular activity and emissions are included in
targets for T-5, Expanded Transit, and T-7, Encourage Bicycle Mode.
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The Revised RAQS implementation program recorrmends that local juris-
dictions work with transit operators to identify areas of on-street
parking which adversely affect transit operations and bicycle use •
and, where warranted, eliminate on-street parking. |
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
The effects of this tactic on transit ridership and bicycling are in- •
eluded in measures of the transit and bicycling tactics. The effects
of the tactic on improving transit speeds are measured in T-25, Traffic •
Engineering for Transit. •
IAs in the case of Tactic T-25, a formal program of identifying problem
parking areas has not been set up which has limited the effectiveness of
this tactic. There appears to have been little progress in implementing •
the tactic. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-47
T-27, ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN MODE
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
This tactic encourages the diversion of short automobile trips to walking
by improving pedestrian facilities and by educating the public on the
conparative advantage of walking rather than using a car.
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Pedestrian facilities are the responsibility of local jurisdictions.
SANDAG is responsible for developing and carrying out a public infor-
mation program to encourage people to walk rather than drive.
RFP TARGETS
The following vehicular activity and emission reduction targets were
set for T-27:
Target 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Change in Trips 0 -0.10% -0.20% -0.20% -0.30%
Change in VMT 0 -0.01% -0.02% -0.02% -0.03%
Change in RHC Emissions (Tons/Day) 0 -0.03 -0.06 -0.07 -0.11
Change in CO Emissions (Tons/Day) 0 -0.22 -0.45 -0.51 -0.84
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The Revised RAQS implementation program called for local jurisdictions
to incorporate pedestrian system improvements in all feasible public
works projects and to encourage them in all feasible private projects.
A model subdivision ordinance provision was prepared by SANDAG to
assist local governments in requiring sidewalks and walkways in new
developments, as well as bicycle and transit-related improvements. No
jurisdiction has adopted the ordinance; however, most local jurisdictions
already require sidewalks in new developments. Most jurisdictions also
perform repair work on existing walkways as manpower and money permit.
No special program to increase public awareness of the benefits of
walking was initiated in 1980.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
Measures of RFP for this tactic are not available on an annual basis.
The only way to monitor walking activity in the region is through home
interview travel behavior surveys or through use of journey-to-work data
from the U.S. Census Bureau. SANDAG conducted a Travel Behavior Survey
11-48
I
I
in 1977 and found that about 10 percent of all trips and 3 percent of •
work trips were made by walking. Since Travel Behavior Surveys are |
extremely expensive, they can be repeated only every 5 to 10 years.
Information about the journey-to-work trip is collected by the U.S. «
Census Bureau in the decennial Census of Population and Housing and • •
in Annual Housing Surveys which are done every 3 years in a particular .
city. However, data on walking from the 1980 Census are not yet
available. B
RFP STA1US
Existing local subdivision ordinances require sidewalks and walkways in I
new developments, and most jurisdictions give consideration to pedestrian
access on a project-by-project basis. Since emission reductions claimed
for this tactic are extremely small and none is claimed until 1985, ' I
implementation of this tactic is presumed to be on schedule. •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-49
T-28, EXPANDED INTEHJKBAN BUS AND RAIL
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this tactic is to shift interurban travel between San Diego
and Los Angeles from automobile, general aviation and commercial aviation
modes to less polluting rail and bus nodes. The major emphasis of the
tactic is on improving San Diego-Los Angeles rail service. .
IMPLEMENTATICN RESPONSIBILITIES
Responsibility for implementing this tactic rests primarily with AMTRAK,
CALTRANS and the Santa Fe Railway. AMTRAK owns the engines and cars which
comprise the trains, while the Santa Fe Railway operates the trains over its
own tracks under contract with AMTRAK. Passenger service improvements must
also be negotiated with the Santa Fe Railway so as to not adversely affect
its rail freight operations. CALTRANS is involved in providing subsidies
for part of the cost of operating the passenger service. Local governments
have sane implementation responsibilities in the development and upgrading
of intermodal terminal facilities.
RFP TARGETS
The Revised RAQS calls for improved rail service by adding two trains a
day between San Diego and Los Angeles. This would increase the number
of trains from the six trains a day existing in 1978 to eight trains a
day by 1985. Improvements to the Oceanside, Del Mar and San Diego inter-
modal terminals are also part of the plan.
T-28 has the following ridership and emission reduction targets:
Target 1985 1995
Annual Ridership 1,240,000 N/C
Daily Ridership 3,500 N/C
RHC (Tons/Day) -0.002 -0.004
CO (Tons/Day) -0.088 -0.176
N/C = Not Calculated
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The major service improvement during 1980 was the addition of a seventh
train between San Diego and Los Angeles. However, at the same time, it
was necessary to increase travel times between San Diego and Los Angeles
from 2 hours and 35 minutes to 2 hours and 45 minutes in order to minimize
11-50
interference with freight service. The Santa Fe Railway is currently .
making track improvements which should enable higher operating speeds
in the future to partially offset the travel time increase.
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
No definite plans now exist for further increasing the frequency of
train service in the near future. However, the 1981 Regional Transpor-
tation Improvement Plan (RTIP) does program money for terminal improvements
which would increase the attractiveness and convenience of train service.
Specifically, the RTIP includes acquisition and restoration of the Santa
Fe Depot in Centre City San Diego for 1982, construction of a terminal
in the Del Mar area in 1982, and improvements to Oceanside's terminal
in 1984.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
Ridership on the San Diego-Los Angeles trains continued to increase in
1980, although at a slower rate than in 1979 when the gasoline shortage
and rapid gasoline price increases produced a surge of new riders. The
following changes in ridership have occurred over the last two years:
Annual Ridership
1978 1979 1980
Change in Ridership
78 - 79 79 - 80 78 - 80
832,969 1,177,557 1,261,984 +41.3%+7.2%+51.5%
.Ridership increases are converted into travel and emission reduction
estimates using procedures described in the appendix, producing the
following tactic effectiveness measures for 1979 and 1980:
1979 1980
1,177,557 1,261,984
Change
79 to 80
+ 7.2%
+900
+0.0%
-0.024%
-0.0096
-0.110
+1,150
+0.0%
-0.029%
-0.0096
-0.114
+ 27.8%
+ 0.0%
- 22.5%
+ 0.0%
- 4.1%
Measure
Annual Ridership
Change in Daily Ridership
Vehicle Trips
VMT
RHC (Tons/Day)
CO (Tons/Day)
The table shows that while ridership gains have been impressive, travel
and emission reductions resulting frcm the ridership increases are in-
significant. This is because the number of trips carried in the trains
is only a small fraction of regionwide travel. In addition, the relatively
high rates of auto access and low percentage of riders who are former auto
drivers lessens the effectiveness of the tactic. For example, increases
in auto access trips offset reductions in former auto driver trips so
that no net reduction in vehicle trips results.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-51
RFP STATUS
The following table compares tactic effectiveness targets with tactic
effectiveness measures for 1980.
Measure 1980 Target 1980 Measure
Daily Ridership 2,650 3,450
\fehicle Trips jfO.0% +0.0%
VMT -0.009% -0.029%
RHC (Tons/Day) -0.0029 -0.0096
CO (Tons/Day) -0.0347 -0.1141
Ridership in 1980 is ahead of anticipated 1980 ridership by about
30 percent and is almost at the 1985 ridership target of 3,500 daily
passengers. However, given the tactic's low emission reduction
effectiveness, emission reduction targets are not being exceeded
significantly.
11-52
IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
RFP TARGETS
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
I
I
T-29, FREEWAY RAMP METERING *
I
TACTIC PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION . •
Ramp metering — signalizing freeway on-ramps to control the entry of
vehicles onto the freeway —is both an air quality emission reduction _
and maintenance tactic. It also is a support tactic for T-2, Expanded I
Ridesharing, and T-5, Expanded Transit. •
Ramp metering is an effective tool which can, under appropriate con- ' •
ditions, promote optimum use of a transportation corridor. Its use |
improves air quality in two ways: (1) by improving the flow of traffic
on freeways, and (2) by encouraging transit ridership and ridesharing _
by providing bypass lanes at ramps. Bypass ramps permit a time saving I
for buses and carpcols, encouraging a modal shift. ™
I
CALTRANS is responsible for incremental implementation of ramp metering
on the region's freeway system as part of the Regional Transportation •
Improvement Program (RTIP). Local jurisdictions have no implementation I
responsibilities for this tactic.
I
The Revised RAQS calls for ramp metering on SR 94 and 1-8, and on
additional freeway segments as warranted. The following emission •
reductions were expected to result: |
Target 1980 1985 1990 1995 20QO I
RHC (Tons/Day) -0.03 -0.04 -0.09 -0.16 -0.21
CO (Tons/Day) -0.26 -0.47 -1.01 -1.88 -2.45
1980 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
I
IThe region's first ramp metering project on westbound SR 94 began op-
eration in 1978. CALTRANS has since continued monitoring the performance
of the project and made minor, operational improvements. In 1980, ramp I
metering equipment was installed along a portion of 1-8 and limited op- •
eration was begun in early 1981.
I
In 1981, ramp metering in the eastbound direction of SR 94 is expected —
to be completed. The 1981 RTIP also includes the second stage of the I
I
1
1VI
1• •
1
1•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11-53
ramp metering project en 1-8 and ramp metering along 1-805 from 1-15
to Clairemont Mesa Boulevard.
QUANTIFIABLE MEASURES OF RFP
In last year's RFP report an analysis was made of the effects of SR 94
ramp metering on speeds and emissions. The following results were ob-
tained:
Change
Measure 1977 1979 1977 to 1979
Peak Period Speeds (MPH) 48.44 53.47 +10.4%
RHC (Tons/Day) 1.17 1.03 -12.0%
CD (Tons/Day) 12.17 11.15 - 8.4%
Since conditions have not changed appreciably since 1979, SR 94 metering
was not reanalyzed for this report.
RFP STATUS
Freeway ramp metering is on schedule and proving to be more effective than
anticipated, thus progress is being maintained. The following comparison
of targets and actual performance in 1980 can be made:
• 1980 1980
Measure Target Actual Difference
RHC (Tons/Day) 0.03 0.14 +367%
CO (Tons/Day) 0.26 1.02 +392%
I
_ III-l
I
— CHAPTER III
QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
I
_ In the final report a summary of the Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report
• for calendar year 1980 will be included in this section. This report is
" currently being prepared.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER IV
STATUS OF ACTIONS REQUIRED BY 79 SIP
Chapter IV summarizes the status of all the actions committed to in the
locally adopted Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy (Revised RAQS) which
were forwarded to Air Resources Board (ARB) to include as the mandated 1979
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. Actions include rule or resolution
adoption, studies, pilot projects, schedules for future stationary and mobile
source control measures pursuant to the R-RAQS plan for attaining clean air
in San Diego.
This chapter discusses the status of stationary source rules and schedule of
adoption; mobile source controls; stricter vehicular emission standards;
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M); Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
final rule on the Revised RAQS; and the pilot or demonstration programs
undertaken.
A. STATIONARY SOURCE RULE ADOPTION
In the following Table 1.1 the progress toward implementation of the R-RAQS
portion of the 79 SIP is detailed. As previously discussed, five of these
rules became effective in 1980. These were, Dry Cleaners (P-l)
(non-halogenated solvent); Architectural Surface Coatings (P-3); Fixed and
Floating Roof Gasoline Storage (P-8a); Gasoline Marketing and Transfer (P-8b)
and Cutback Asphalt (P-24). Of the nineteen tactics enumerated in Table 1.1,
Rules were to be adopted in 1980 for eight tactics. However, no new rules
were adopted in 1980. Five of these eight tactics are awaiting action by the
statewide technical review group. Two, Halogenated Dry Cleaners and Aerospace
Surface Coatings were delayed but are now being evaluated for local adoption
by mid 1981.
The remaining tactic (Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance) requires State
legislation which has been introduced but has failed at each legislative
session since 1978 despite EPA, ARB, local agency and other support.
In the usual rule adoption process for stationary sources, the EPA researches
potential control measures and then publishes a Control Technology Guideline
(CTG) which the District reviews for local applicability. If the CTG is found
appropriate, it is included in the air quality plan. A statewide committee of
ARB and the larger Air Pollution Control District's (APCD), called the
Technical Review Group (TRG), provides rule development research and
coordination. TRG addresses CTG's and other control measures included in
plans of various Districts in California. TRG then issues a Model Rule or
Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for adoption by the Districts. In several
cases the state has had more technical or institutional problems than
anticipated and SCM's have not been completed on schedule. The following
stationary control measures scheduled for adoption in 1980 experienced delays
in SCM development which in turn delayed San Diego Air Pollution Control
Board action; auto refinishing, wood furniture coatings, aerospace coatings,
TABLE 1.1
SUMMARY
PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION OF THE R-RAQS/79 SIP
Ozone Strategy
Page ']
1981 Reasonable Further Prooress Report
TACTIC CONTROL MEASURES
NO.
PI* Dry Cleaners (Non-halogenated)
P2 Organic Compound Surface
Cleaners
P3* Architectural Surface Coatings
P4.01 General Metal Parts and Products
P4.02 Can and Coll Coatings
P4.03 Paper and Fabric Coatings
P4.04 Auto Refinlshlng
P4.05 Hood Furniture
P4.06 Aerospace
P4.07 Graphic Printing
Rule
No.
67.2
67.6
67.0 &
67.1
67.3
67.4
67.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rule Adoption
Scheduled
1/78
6/79
11/77
4/79
4/79
5/79
12/80
9/80
not
specified
1/80
Actual or
Anticipated
1/78
7/79
11/77
. 5/79
5/79
5/79
1982
1981
1981
Undetermined
Year Effective
Scheduled
(R-RAQS)
1980 & 1984
1980 & 1984
1979 J 1980
1982
1982
1982
1983
1984
1984
1983
Scheduled (Rule)
or Anticipated
1978, 1980,
1982 & 1984
1980 & 1982
1979 & 1980
1982
1982
1982
1984 or 1985
1984
1986
Undetermined
SAN DIEGO AIR POILUTION COHTROI DISTRICT
1987 RHC Emissions (tons/day)
R-RAQS/SIP
Trends
0.5
21.8
8.4
21.1
0.5
0.2
6.2
6.2
11.3
1.9
Reduction
0
10.9
0
18.0
0.5
=0.2
5.3
5.3
9.0
1.3
RFP Evaluation
Trends
0.6
17.7
8.7
5.8
0.3
0.2
6.0
5.6
7.9
0.2
Reduction
0
5.3
0
3.0
0.3
= 0.2
2.0
2.2
4.7
Unde terminal
Ino
*P1 Dry Cleaners and P3 Architectural Surface Coatings were assumed in the baseline emissions case for future year implementation, and no additional
control was credited for R-RAQS implementation.
1981 Reasonable Further Progress Report
TABLE 1.1 - continued
SUMMARY
PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION OF THE R-RAQS/79 SIP
Ozone Strategy
Page 2
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
TACTIC CONTROL MEASURES
NO.
P4.08 Other Special Coatings
P8a Fixed & Floating Roof Storage
P8b Marketing & Transfer
P21** Dry Cleaning (Perchloroethylene)
P23 Marine Coatings
P24*** Cutback Asphalt
P25 Chemical .Products Manufacturing
P30 Marine Lightering
M24 Maximum Inspection and Maintenance
Rule
No.
NA
61.1
61.2,
61.3 &
61.4
NA
NA
67.7
NA
NA
NA
Rule Adoption
Scheduled
7/79
3/79
3/79
3/80
6/80
6/79
3/80
U n d e t
7/79
Actual or
Anticipated
Undetermined
10/78
10/78
8/81
1982
8/79
1931
e r m 1 n e d
Not on Schedule
Year Effective
Scheduled
(R-RAQS)
1984
1980
1980-1985
1984
1981
1982
1982
U n d e t
1982
Scheduled (Rule)
or Anticipated
Undetermined
1980
1978-1982
1983
1985 or 1986
1980 & 1982
1983 or 1984
e r m 1 n e d
1982
1987 RIIC Emissions (tons/day)
R-RAQS/SIP
Trends
1.7
1.0
3.9
4.6
3.2
5.4
24,4
Not Incl
so no cr
42.6
Reduction
1.2
0.5
1.9
2.7
1.1
4.9
11,0
ided in the
:d1t for ret
16.2
RFP Evaluation
Trends
2.8
1.6
2.2
4.2
4.3
6.2
12.5
emissions
uctions 1s
71.4
Reduction
Undetermined
0.8
0".6
2.1
1.7
1.1
9.2
inventory
assessed.
5.2
** Dry Cleaning (Perchloroethylene): In the original R-RAQS analysis, dry cleaning halogenated solvents were not considered reactive. However, under the
EPA reactivity classification scheme, these emissions are considered reactive and so will be Included now and in the future.
*** P24 Cutback Asphalt: Cutback asphalt emissions were not included in the 75' Emissions Inventory or credited against total emissions for the R-K
TABLE 1.2
T-TACT1C RFP SUMMARY. 1980
T-l Modified Land Use Tactic
T-2 Expanded Rldesharing
T-5 Expanded Transit
T-7 Encourage Bike Travel
T-14 Traffic Flow Improvements
T-21 Flex-Time and Staggered
Work Hours
T-2Z Preferential Parking for
Rldesharers
T-23 Carpool Toll Reduction on
Coronado Bridge
T-24 Park-and-Rlde Facilities
T-25 Traffic Engineering for
Transit
T-26 Reduced On-Street Parking
T-27 Encourage Pedestrian Mode
T-28 Expanded Inter-Urban Bus
and Rail
T-29 Freeway Ramp Metering
1980 Emission
Reduction Targets
(Tons/Day)
RHC CO
0.22
0.07
0.05
0.28
0
0.003
0.03
N/A
2.23
0.68
0.30
3.02
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0.035
0.26
1980 Emission
Reduction Targets
(Tons/Day)
RHC CO
N/A
0.33 3.31
11 11
11 11
11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
0.009 0.114
0.14 1.02
Milestones
Achieved?
Partially
Yes
No
Yes
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
N/A - Any Emission reductions from
support tactics are Included In targets
of principal tactics.
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
IV-5
graphic printing, halogenated dry cleaners, marine surface coatings and phar-
maceutical/chemical manufacturing. The following discussion explains in de-
tail the information supplied in Table 1.1 Summary of Progress Toward Imple-
mentation of the Revised RAQS/79 SIP Ozone Strategy. The first six control
measures are basically on schedule.
Auto Refinishing (P-4.04)
The first control measure in Table 1.1 which has experienced this type of
delay is Auto Refinishing (Tactic P-4.04). This control measure was projected
in the 79 SIP for adoption as a rule in December 1980 and rescheduled in the
1980 RFP report as 1981 or 1982. The latest ARB agenda anticipates a
statewide SCM by December 1981. However, the control measure at the CTG level
dealt with auto finishing at assembly lines, not auto refinishing. The SCM
now being developed by the ARB includes auto refinishing. San Diego's plan
calls for the 6.0 tons/day of uncontrolled auto refinishing emissions to be
reduced by 2.0 tons/day by 1987. This tactic anticipated the use of both
reformulation and/or source control equipment.
Surface Coatings on VJood Furniture (P-4.05)
The rule adoption process for surface coatings on wood furniture (Tactic P-
4.05) has experienced the same delay as auto refinishing. A SCM from ARB is
expected in October 1981. This source was estimated to contribute 5.6
tons/day of RHC in 1987 and would provide 2.2 tons/day RHC reductions by
1987.
Aerospace Surface Coatings (P-4.06)
The rule adoption process for this 79 SIP anticipated control measure was
delayed by the statewide process, but is back on schedule now and the SCM is
applicable to San Diego. A rule is being developed for adoption this spring
by APCD. The anticipated phased reductions planned to start in 1981-1985 have
been delayed to 1985. A reanalysis of the anticipated localized control
effectiveness is being conducted, but the results are not available at this
writing. The previous analysis anticipated 4.7 tons/day RHC control of the
uncontrolled 7.9 tons/day from this category by 1987.
Graphic Printing (P-4.07)
The rule to control RHC emissions from graphic printing operations originally
scheduled to be adopted by January 1980, then rescheduled to 1982 or 1984 in
the 80 RFP report has been placed in lower priority with the TRG and is not on
their agendas. In the adopted 79 SIP 1.2 tons/day of RHC reduction were
anticipated by 1983. However the CTG did not affect the San Diego type of
printing sources. Further the tactic revaluation estimated the graphic
printing emissions as only 0.2 tons/day in the 1978 Emissions Inventory.
Other Special Coatings (P-4.08)
These additional surface coating applications are not being considered by ARB
at the present time or on their future agenda. About 2.8 tons/day uncon-
trolled RHC emission sources were anticipated in the 79 SIP analysis by 1987
from these sources.
I
IV-6
I
Fixed Sources and Floating Roof Gasoline Storage (P-8a) and Marketing and I
transfer (P-«b)™
These control measures implemented in calendar year 1980 are discussed in •
Chapter II. |
Dry Cleaning (Perch!oroethylene) (P-21) »
This control measure was scheduled for adoption as an APCD rule in March 1980. ™
In the 1980 RFP report it was rescheduled to November 1980. However, TRG did
not meet its rule development schedule. This SCM is now completed and the •
District plans adoption by August, 1981. I
This control measure was not credited in the original version of the 79 •
SIP/Revised RAQS because perch!oroethylene was assumed to be non- •
photochemically reactive by ARB. EPA has since reclassified it as reactive ™
and both the emissions level and the emission reduction credit are now
included in the TRENDS and the Revised RAQS line in this study. The emissions •
level in the 1978 reanalysis is very close to the projected level and 2.1 9
tons/day RHC of emission reduction is expected by 1987 from this source.
Marine Surface Coatings (P-23) I
Control of emissions from marine surface coating was originally scheduled for
adoption in 1980 and then rescheduled to 1981. Presently the TRG plans a •
1987 implementation date. Approximately 1.3 tons/day of RHC emissions I
reduction is available from this source category control by 1987. It should
be noted that surface coating reformulation requires considerable prior •
research and lead time to meet imp!mentation schedules. •
Pharmaceuticals, Chemical and Miscellaneous Mfg. (P-25)
It was anticipated that the San Diego source types of would be included in the •
SCM from ARB, but this did not occur. By 1987 approximately 9.2 tons/day RHC
emission are expected to be reduced from the 12.5 tons/day uncontrolled level. •
Rule development is not proceeding on the original schedule and additional I
work is necessary. See Tactic P-25.01 evaluation worksheet for details.
Marine Lightering (P-30)I
Marine lightering is the transfer of petroleum products from large tankers to
smaller vessels. This marine lightering control measure was not locally m
adopted in the Revised RAQS. However, ARB developed a model rule and sent it I
to APCD for analysis. The proposed rule was referred to the County Counsel
who found legal problems with the measure. APCD has not proceeded with the
adoption of this tactic. It should be noted that this control measure applies M
primarily to activities within the South Coast Air Quality Management «
District's air basin. However, transport analyses tend to show lightering
west of the South Coast Air Basin may impact San Diego County. m
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
IV-7
B. MOBILE SOURCE RULE/RESOLUTION ADOPTION
In this section the progress of the mobile source control program as locally
adopted in the 79 SIP is discussed. The ARB's response to the more stringent
and more inclusive vehicular standards originally proposed in the locally
adopted Revised RAQS is followed by a brief discussion of the revisions to the
anticipated effectiveness of the only 79 SIP vehicular source control measure
remaining in ARB's version of the Revised RAQS.
As shown in the emission inventory (Chapter I) and the Tables A-l thru A-5 in
the Appendices, majority of the reactive hydrocarbon (RHC), nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) problem comes from mobile sources. Similarly
the most effective control measures are the continuing benefits from
California's strict vehicular emission controls. As mentioned earlier
vehicular controls are under the ARB's jurisdiction not local agencies.
In the 79 SIP analysis, despite implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable, San Diego cannot demonstrate
attainment by 1982 for ozone or CO and therefore requested an extension to
1987. Under the Clean Air Act 1977 amendments areas which requested an
extension must implement an I/M program. However, even with the extension to
1987 and the I/M program, the Revised RAQS showed that the ozone standard
could not be reached. Therefore the locally adopted 79 SIP included and
relied on the State adopting and implementing stricter and more inclusive
vehicular standards.
ARB responded to the 1978 request in a letter dated April 1, 1981 from Gary
Rubenstein, Deputy Executive Officer. The original list of mobile source
control tactics, included in the Revised RAQS but not in ARB's, 79 SIP are
shown in Table IV-A with the corresponding ARB name.
PROPOSED STRICTER
ARB Name R-RAQS Name
MS-8 M6
* M9
MS-1&2 M14
* M25
* M26
* M27
MS- 7 M28
MS-1&2 M30
MS-4 M32
MS-7 M37
* M38
MS- 3 MS2
IV-8
TABLE IV-A
VEHICULAR CONTROLS FROM REVISED-RAQS
100,000 Mile Warranty Light-Duty Auto (LDA)
Evaporative Control on LDA, LOT, MDT
Off-road MDV, Exhaust Emission Standard
Inspection/Maintenance, all Vehicles Other than
LDA, LOT, MDT
Retrofit 1966 - 1974 MDV & LDV with Oxidation
Catalysts
Retrofit Oxidation Catalysts on 1970-77 Heavy
Duty Gasoline Vehicles
LDA, LOT & MDT Optimum Exhaust Emission
Standards
Heavy-Duty Truck HC Exhaust Standard
Motorcycle Exhaust Standard
Battery-Powered Cars
Methanol /Gasoline Blend
Home Utility Engines
*ARB grouping does not correlate exactly with R-RAQS tactics. Those without
a corresponding ARB name were considered not feasible and deleted from
further study at this time by ARB.
1
I
1
i
i
im
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
IV-9
The ARE analysed this list and found several tactics infeasible to implement
but agreed in 1980 to adopt for further study the following mobile source
control measures. The status of these follows:
"MS-1 and MS-2 New Off-Road Heavy-Duty Farm and Construction Equipment
Several workshops have been held with the heavy-duty equipment and engine
manufacturers. The primary topic for discussion was the emission
inventory for this source category, however, several manufacturers have
already initiated dialogue with ARB concerning regulatory strategies.
While my staff is optimistic about regulations which could result for
off-road equipment, the level of reduction obtainable is not yet clear, so
I suggest that you use the emission reduction estimates from March. An
updated emission inventory (not reductions) should be available for this
category in several months. This entire effort is jeopardized by
legislation which would prohibit the ARB from adopting standards for farm
equipment.
"MS-3 Lawn and Garden Equipment (Utility)
One workshop was held with the manufacturers of lawn and garden equipment
to discuss emission inventory. At the workshop it was apparent that some
members of the industry could not yet contribute emission and population
data to the emission inventory analysis, while others were performing
sophisticated tests to reevaluate load factor and usage estimates. In
order to provide additional time for the industry to develop information
which would be useful for ARB's regulatory analysis, the schedule was
extended, and a second emission inventory workshop will be held in July
1981.
"MS-4 and MS-5 Off-Road Motorcycles and Pleasure Craft (Boats)
No activity has begun as yet.
"MS-6 Anti-Tampering Regulations for On-Highway Heavy-Duty Engines
These regulations have been adopted by our Board and take effect in the
1982 model year.
"MS-7 Electric Powered Vehicles and Stricter LDV Emission Standards
Studies in this area are ongoing.
"MS-8 100,000 Mile Warranty for Passenger Cars
Although the 100,000 mile warranty has not been considered by the
Legislature, the ARB is currently negotiating with the auto manufacturers
on extended durability requirements and warranties. These negotiations
will be discussed at the May 1981 Board meeting.
1. ARB letter from Gary Rubenstein to R.J. Sommerville, San Diego APCO, dated
April 1, 1981. (See Appendix F)
IV-10
I
I
i"MS-9 Inspection and Maintenance of Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Motorcycles
A research contract was funded to investigate the usage and maintenance •
practices of the heavy-duty truck industry. The research is currently in |
progress."
While the ARB report represents a step by ARB toward assuming additional •
responsibility in controlling mobile source emissions, the tactics proposed •
for additional study are aimed at controlling off-road and heavy duty
vehicles — a relatively small portion (less than 15%) of the overall mobile •
source emissions. The only tactic under consideration with any potential for |
indirectly achieving reductions from light-duty vehicles is the substitution
of electric-powered vehicles, and this measure appears unlikely to contribute _
significantly to attainment. Therefore, unless the ARB position is changed, •
any additional emission reductions from light-duty vehicles may require the *
use of locally implemented transportation measures.
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (M-24) p
The only control measure for mobile sources which was adopted by ARB for the M
79 SIP was the annual inspection and maintenance (I/M) of light-duty autos, •
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles. This tactic requires state *
legislation which has not passed despite repeated efforts.
In the 79 SIP submittal and the 1980 RFP Report, District staff calculated I
emission reductions attributable to a I/M program based on EPA's computer
program entitled MOBILE I. A 38% reduction in RHC emissions and a 53% £
reduction in CO emissions was projected for the year 1987. Additionally, the •
I/M program was assumed to apply to light-duty auto's (IDA), light-duty trucks
(LOT), and medium-duty vehicles (MDV) in the original SIP submittal but was
revised in the 1980 RFP report to apply only to LDA's and LDT's. •
For the 1981 RFP report, different assumptions were used to calculate the
emission reductions from an I/M program. Those assumptions were provided by «
ARB in a letter from Gary Rubenstein, Deputy Executive Officer, dated April 1, I
1981. Two sets of emission reductions estimates were presented in the
letter; one set for the existing idle test/underhood inspection program and
another set for a loaded mode inspection program. The loaded mode inspection •
program predicted greater emission reductions than the idle test/underhood I
program. District staff used the predicted percent reductions for a loaded
mode I/M program because Tactic M24 (contained in the 79 SIP) is for a m
maximum inspection/maintenance program. I
The predicted 1987 percent reduction for a loaded mode inspection program is
11.3% for RHC and 15.8% for CO. Table IV-B is a comparison of previous I/M •
percent reduction estimates and current I/M percent reduction estimates for •
the year 1987.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
iv-n
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
TABLE IV-B
COMPARISON OF I/M BENEFITS
Pollutant Reduction in 1987
RHC CO
79 SIP & 1980 RFP Report 38% Reduction 53% Reduction
Based on MOBILE I 15.7 tons/day reduced 242.7 ton/day reduced
Predictions
ARB Supplied Predictions 11.3% Reduction 15.8% Reduction
[EMFAC 6C] 5.2 tons/day reduced 89.5 tons/day reduced
EPA's MOBILE I has been revised and is now entitled MOBILE 2. District staff
has not analyzed the I/M benefit using MOBILE 2, however, an EPA I/M update
release dated January 12, 1981 states that MOBILE 2 predicts a greater
emission reduction effectiveness of an I/M program than MOBILE 1.
A major difference between ARB's and EPA's assumptions on the benefit of an
I/M program is in the way the estimated percent reduction is applied over a
period of time. EPA assumes a small percentage reduction the first year with
continuing increasing reduction benefits in subsequent years, until finally
leveling off at a substantially higher estimated reductions than ARB's
projected reductions. ARB assumes a much higher percent reduction the first
year of an I/M program and remains constant in subsequent years.
Since the California Legislature has not passed legislation to implement an
I/M program statewide, and the current pilot program in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District is for change of ownership only, sufficient data
has not been obtained to reach any conclusions and it remains to be seen
which assumptions are correct.
In the Revised RAQS, the implementation of the I/M program was scheduled for
1980. That has been revised to 1982 since there is no enabling legislation.
The schedule may be revised again depending upon what the legislature does
concerning an I/M program.
IV-12
D. PILOT OR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
I
I
C. PRODUCTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED BY EPA CONDITIONAL APPROVALS I
In the 1980 RFP report a series of actions required by EPA for meeting the
conditional EPA approval as included in Federal Register, October 4, 1979, •
were discussed. H
The District and SANDAG supplied the required information (see Appendix G, »
Letter from Sommerville to Lockett, 3/17/79). The EPA responded to the •
additional SIP revision data in the Federal Register of April 14, 1981 (See *
Appendix C). In this Federal Register EPA published its final rulemaking on
the San Diego Nonattainment Area Plan (NAP). EPA approved the particulate •
(TSP) and nitrogen dioxide (NO.) portions of the plan conditionally thus •
removing the major TSP and N0? source construction ban. The ozone and CO
plans except I/M provisions are also conditionally approved, however, the new ^
major source construction ban for these sources is not removed. •
In the Federal Register of May 6, 1981 the Region was proposed to be desig-
nated attainment for N02 (see Appendix C). Additional discussion of this •
action on the 79 SIP process appears in Volume I. I
While the District intends to pursue remedies for deficiencies in the par- •
ticulate strategy, additional assistance and cooperation from the ARB and EPA •
in resolving these problems is imperative. Further, the EPA currently is
reviewing the ambient particulate standard, which is scheduled for revision by
December 1981. Given the extent of the effort needed for the pilot project I
and the expected revision to the particulate standard, the appropriate time to •
address the particulate strategy would be late 1981 or early 1982.
I
IAs discussed earlier the total suspended particulate standard must be attained
by December 1982. Most particulate emissions are attributable to mineral
product plants and vehicular travel on unpaved roads. The Revised RAQS •
included two fugitive emissions tactics to reduce by 50 tons a day the •
particulate emissions in 1982. However, ARB did not adopt these tactics but
called for the development of work plans to refine the particulate matter
analysis. The District submitted a work plan including a proposed pilot I
program but has had no specific response from the Air Resources Board. ARB •
has committed to adopt necessary TSP controls, however, there has been no
progress to that end. The only pilot project proposed was for particulate •
study. The District provided a detailed request in April, 1980 to ARB but no •
response has been received.
EPA's notice of rulemaking concerning the San Diego Strategy (April 14, 1981) •
requires committments to study and control fugitive emissions. The District •
will provide such committments commensurate with funding in coordination with
the State Air Resources Board. The ARB should move expeditiously to develop •
control measures necessary to attain the standard by a specified date. |
Without ARB's concerted and prompt assistance, the standard is not likely
to be attained by December 1982. .
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV-13
The only implementation actions taken on pilot or demonstration projects were
those in SANDAG's purview. The following discussion by SANDAG explains these
projects. Late in 1980, the SANDAG Board of Directors authorized the use of
$100,000 in federal grant funds for three projects designed to directly
implement transportation tactics or to test the effectiveness of certain
implementation techniques. Contracts for the projects (two in the City of San
Diego and one in San Diego County) were negotiated and executed early in
1981.
The three projects are:
1. Vanpool Expansion/Evaluation Project (County of San Diego)
The goal of this project is to expand the County's existing employee
vanpool program to five or six additional County employment centers by
evaluating the effectiveness of the current program, identifying any
impediments to expansion of the program, removing such obstacles, and
organizing additional vanpools.
2. High-Density Employment Rideshare Project (City of San Diego)
This project will test the effectiveness of various rideshare marketing
techniques in increasing ridesharing among employees of smaller firms
located in downtown high-rise office buildings and other high-density
employment centers.
3. Pacific Beach Bicycle Saturation Project (City of San Diego)
The object of this project is to design and implement low-capital
portions of a program to maximize the use of bicycles in this beach
community within the City of San Diego.
Completion date of the County project is late 1981; both City of San Diego
projects are to be completed by mid-1982.
A fourth project — a transit educational package for local school children —
also was initiated during the year, with the San Diego Transit Corporation as
the lead agency. SANDAG staff also continued its participation with the City
of San Diego and the State Coastal Commission in the development of a
shuttle bus/remote parking program in the Mission Beach area of the City.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-I
CHAPTER V
EFFECT OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW RULE IN CY 1980
The District's New Source Review Rules require the use of best available
control technology (BACT) when a new or modified source will increase
emissions more than 10 pounds per hour or more than 100 pounds per day of
nitrogen oxides, organic gases or any air contaminant for which there is a
state or national ambient air quality standard, except carbon monoxide, for
which the limit is 100 pounds per hour or 1000 pounds per day (Rule 20.2). If
increased emissions will exceed 25 pounds per hour or 250 pounds per day (100
pounds or 1000 pounds for carbon mono de) after BACT is applied, an authority
to construct will not be granted unless an air quality analysis shows that the
increased emissions will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
an air quality standard (Rule 20.3). Offsets are allowed in lieu of BACT
provided the offset is at least equal to the new emission or emission
increase. New major sources and major source modifications, as defined in
Rule 20.1, require the use of lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) control
(Rule 20.4), offsets of remaining emissions by at least 120 percent, and air
quality analysis.
In 1980, approximately 30 applications for permits for equipment which,
require application of BACT under the new source review rules, were received
by the District. None were major sources. All had emissions below the
threshold limits of Rule 20.3 after BACT was applied. None used offsets. In
1980 as a result of BACT application approximately 27 tons of particulates and
5 tons of sulfur oxides reduction were obtained.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI-1
CHAPTER VI
PUBLIC INPUT
In this section the process used to elicit and encourage public input is
explained. In addition the public response obtained is summarized for
inclusion in the final report.
A. CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY
As required by EPA the RFP report is to be written for the general public
and a Notice of Availability for Review and Comment of the Draft Report must
be published in a newspaper of general circulation. A certified copy of this
public notice must accompany the final RFP report when submitted to ARB/EPA.
B. PUBLIC HEARING/MEETINGS
The San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board reviews and approves for
Public Review and Distribution the 1981 RFP Draft report at its regularly
scheduled public meeting. In addition, following the public comment period,
another public hearing is held to accept the report, approve it and finalize
it for submission to ARB/EPA. The public may input at these hearings.
The Community Resources Panel (CRP), a broad spectrum advisory board to the
APCD and SANDAG consisting of members representing civic, business, industry,
government, environmental and citizen groups, hears the Draft report at an
open meeting and provides their comments both orally and in writing.
The SANDAG Board of Directors, which are elected officials from various cities
in the region, also hears the Report at two public meetings to which the
public may input.
C. DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
The 1981 annual Report of Reasonable Further Progress will be sent to each
main library for the cities and counties in the Region and the County
Government Reference Library. In addition each City and County receives the
report.
As mentioned in the Preface, Volume I is specifically written for the general
public to promote understanding and concern for the on-going program to
obtain clean air for San Diego. Included in Volume I was the summary of the
response to the 1980 Reasonable Further Progress Report.
The public information continuing program with the area schools on air quality
will utilize the RFP report when possible.
Unfortunately the technical issues of air quality are becoming more complex
and the development of an informed public is a continuing challenge. The CRP
continues to offer the most consistent constructive informed public input as
shown in the summary of their comments on the 1980 RFP report (Volume I).
APPENDIX A
EMISSIONS TABLES
TABLE A-l
REACTIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS TRENDS (1981
# SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79 80 81
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
64
65
66
0
0
SURFACE COATING (IND.)*
SURFACE COATING (ARCH.)
SURFACE COATING (MARINE)
SURFACE CLEANING (HALOGENATEO)
SURFACE CLEANING ( NON-HALOGEN ATED)
DRY CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
MANUFACTURING « MISC. LOSSES
PESTICIDES (COMMERCIAL)
PESTICIDES (RESIDENTIAL)
COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD * AGRICULTURE
METALURGICAL
SAND & SOIL PLANTS
CONCRETE BATCHING
STONE QUARRIES
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
ABRASIVE BLASTING FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS (MINERAL PRODUCTS)
WOOD PRODUCTS
FIXED & FLOATING ROOF STORAGE
MARKETING/TRANSFER
ELECTRIC GENERATION (STEAM)
ELECTRIC GENERATION (GAS TURBINE)
BOILERS (INDUSTRIAL)
BOILERS (COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONS)
ENGINE TESTING
NATURAL GAS (PRIMARY SPACE HEATING)
LIQUFIED PETROLEUM GAS
MISCELLANEOUS (FUEL COMBUSTION)
AGRICULTURAL DEBRIS
FOREST MANAGEMENT
RANGE IMPROVEMENT
WEED ABATEMENT
WILDFIRES
STRUCTURAL FIRES
UTILITY EQUIPMENT
CUTBACK ASPHALT
DOMESTIC SOLVENT USAGE
STATIONARY * AREA SOURCE
SUBTOTAL
24.1
16.1
4.0
0.02
16.2
4.2
2.7
34.9
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.7
14.6
0.6
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
5.5
4.2
5.3
140.1
24.8
16.6
4.0
0.02
16.5
4.2
2.7
36.0
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.7
14.6
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
5.7
4.3
5.5
143.3
25.5
17.1
4.1
0.02
16.7
4.2
1.9
37.1
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
5.6
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
5.9
4.4
5.6
136.4
25.8
7.6
4.1
0.02
17.0
4.2
0.9
38.2
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
4.9
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.1
4.5
5.7
127.3
RFP REVISION)
82 83
26.4
7.8
4.1
0.02
17.0
4.2
0.7
39.1
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
4.3
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.0
4.7
5.9
128.5
26.8
8.0
4.3
0.02
17.2
4.2
0.7
40.2
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
3.6
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.3
4.8
6.0
130.2
84
27.4
8.2
4.3
0.02
17.2
4.2
0.6
41.1
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
2.9
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.3
4.9
6.2
131.4
85
27.8
8.4
4.3
0.02
17.5
4.2
0.6
42.2
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
2.2
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.5
5.0
6.3
133.1
TONS/DAY
86 87
28.5
8.6
4.3
0.02
17.7
4.2
0.6
42.4
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
2.2
0.6
0.2
<0.1 .
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.7
5.1
6.5
134.9
28.7
8.7
4.3
0.02
17.7
4.2
0.6
44.4
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.6
2.2
0.6
0.2
<0.l
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.9
5.2
6.6
137.6
88
29.4
8.9
4.4
0.02
17.7
4.2
0.6
45.4
2.0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.4
2.2
0.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.9
5.3
6.7
139.7
89
29.9
9.1
4.4
0.02
17.7
4.2
0.6
46.5
2.0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.4
2.2
0.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
7.1
5.4
6.9
142.0
90
30.3
9.3
4.4
0.02
18.0
4.2
0.6
47.6
2.0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.4
2.2
0.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
7.3
5.5
7.0
144.4
*SEE TABLE - FOR INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATINGS SUBCATEGORIES
TABLE A-l - continued
REACTIVE HYDROCARBON
# SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
COMMERCIAL AVIATION
GENERAL AVIATION (EXHAUST)
MILITARY
RAILROAD
SHIPS/BOATS
L.D.A. COLD/HOT START
L.D.A. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.A. HOT SOAK
L.D.A. DIURNAL
L.D.T. COLD/HOT START -
L.D.T. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.T. HOT SOAK
L.D.T. DIURNAL
M.D.V. COLD/HOT START
M.D.V. RUNNING EXHAUST
M.D.V. HOT SOAK
M.D.V. DIURNAL
H.D.G. COLD/HOT START
H.D.G. RUNNING EXHAUST
H.D.G. HOT SOAK
H.D.G. DIURNAL
H.D.D. COLD/HOT START
H.D.D. RUNNING EXHAUST
STREET MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD HEAVY DUTY
OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL
FARM EQUIPMENT
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS SUBTOTAL
TOTAL RHC EMISSIONS
1.0
0.2
2.9
0.6
4.8
22.5
47.2
33.7
13.7
3.4
8.7
4.6
2.5
0.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
NF
4.9
1.0
0.6
NF
1.0
1.5
7.6
1.3
0.3
0.4
166.9
307.0
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.0
19.1
34.8
25.3
13.8
4.2
7.1
4.8
3.2
0.9
1.3
0.8
0
0
3.8
1.0
0.7
0
2.0
0.8
3.5
5.0
0.5
0.5
143.0
286.3
EMISSIONS TRENDS (1981 RFP REVISION)
80 81 82 83 84 85
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.2
19.4
30.5
22.1
12.7
4.3
6.5
4.6
3.1
0.9
1.2
0.8
0
0
3.7
0.9
0.7
0
2.1
0.7
3.7
5.1
0.5
0.5
134.1
270.5
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.2
19.6
27.1
19.1
11.1
4.1
6.0
3.7
2.8
1.0
1.1
0.7
0
0
3.6
0.8
0.7
0
2.2
0.7
3.7
5.2
0.5
0.5
124.3
251.6
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.2
20.2
24.4
16.3
9.7
4.4
5.5
3.2
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0
0
3.5
0.7
0.6
0
2.4
0.6
3.6
5.3
0.5
0.5
116.7
245.2
1.3
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.4
20.6
21.1
13.8
8.4
4.5
5.1
2.9
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.5
0
0
3.5
0.7
0.6
0
2.5
0.6
3.6
5.3
0.5
0.5
109.3
239.5
1.3 1.3
0.3 0.3
2.9 2.9
0.6 0.6
5.4 5.4
21.2
17.7
9.6
6.3
4.4
4.4
2.2
1.9
1.0
0.7
0.4
0
0
3.3
0.6
0.5
0
2.6
0.5
3.5
5.5
0.6
0.5
97.9
231.0
TONS/DAY
86 87 88
1.3 1
0.3 0
2.9 2
0.6 0
5.4 5
.2 1.2
.4 0.4
.9 2.9
.6 0.6
.4 5.6
21.7
15
6
4
4
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
3
5
0
0
90
228
.6
.7
.6
.4
.9
.7
.6
.0
.6
.3
.2
.5
.4
.8
.4
.7
.7
.6
.5
.4
.0
89 90
1.0 1.0
0.4 0.5
2.9 2.9
0.5 0.6
5.6 5.6
22.8
14.2
4.5
3.1
4.5
3.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.4
0.3
0
0
4.0
0.4
0.3
0
3.0
0.4
3.9
6.0
0.6
0.5
86.3
230.7
TABLE A-2
REACTIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS ESTIMATES INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATINGS
EMISSION TRENDS (1981 RFP REVISION)
01 SURFACE COATING (INDUSTRIAL)
01.1 METAL PARTS * PRODUCTS
01.2 CAN & COIL COATINGS
01.3 PAPER & FABRIC COATINGS
01.4 AUTO REFINISIIING
01.5 WOOD FURNITURE FINISHING
01.6 AEROSPACE
01.7 GRAPHIC PRINTING
01.8 OTHER SPECIAL COATINGS
SOURCE CATEGORY TOTAL
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS LEVEL (1981 RFP REVISION)
P4 SURFACE COATINGS (INDUSTRIAL)
P4.1 METAL PARTS * PRODUCTS
P4.2 CAN & COIL COATINGS
P4.3 PAPER X FABRIC COATINGS
P4.4 AUTO REFINISHING
P4.5 WOOD FURNITURE FINISHINGS
P4.6 AEROSPACE
P4.7 GRAPHIC PRINTING
P4.8 OTHER SPECIAL COATINGS
TOTAL EMISSIONS REMAINING
OVERALL % Reduction
OVERALL % Remaininq
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
4.8
0.3
0.2
5.1
4.7
6.6
0.2
2.3
24.2
M\IN J
4.8
0.3
0.2
5.1
4.7
6.6
0.2
2.3
24.2
0
1.0
5.0
0.3
0.2
5.2
4.8
6.8
0.2
2.5
25.0
5.0
0.3
0.2
5.2
4.8
6.8
0.2
2.5
25.0
0
1.0
5.1
0.3
0.2
5.3
5.0
7.0
0.2
2.5
25.7
5.1
0.3
0.2
5^4
5.0
7.0
0.2
2.5
25.7
0
1.0
5.2
0.3
0.2
5.5
5.1
7.2
0.2
2.5
26.2
5.2
0.3
0.2
5.5
5.1
7.2
0.2
2.5
26.2
0
1.0
5.3
0.3
0.2
5.6
5.2
7.3
0.2
2.6
26.7
2.5
0
<0.1
5.6
5.2
7.3
0.2
2.6
23.4
.12
.88
5.4
0.3
0.3
5.7
5.2
7.4
0.2
2.6
27.1
2.6
0
<0.1
5.7
5.2
7.4
0.2
2.6
23.7
.13
.87
5.5
0.3
0.3
5.7
5.3
7.5
0.2
2.8
27.6
2.6
0
<0.1
3.8
5.3
7.5
0.2
2.8
22.2
.20
.80
5.5
0.3
0.3
5.8
5.4
7.6
0.2
2.8
27.9
2.6
0
<0.1
3.9
3.2
3.0
0.2
2.8
15.7
.44
.56
5.6
0.3
0.3
5.89
5.5
7.8
0.2
2.8
28.4
2.7
0
<0.1
4.0
3.3
3.1
0.2
2.8
16.1
.43
.57
5.8
0.3
0.3
6.0
5.6
7.9
0.2
2.8
28.9
2.8
0
<0.1
4.0
3.4
3.2
0.2
2.8
16.4
.43
.57
5.9
0.4
0.3
6.2
5.8
8-.0
0.2
2.9
29.7
2.8
0
<0.1
4.2
3.5
3.2
0.2
2.9
16.8
.43
.57
6.0
0.4
0.3
6.3
5.8
8.2
0.2
2.9
30.1
2.9
0
<0.1
4.2
3.5
3.3
0.2
2.9
17.0
.44
.56
6.1
0.4
0.3
6.4
5.9
8.3
0.2
2.9
30.5
2.9
0
<0.1
4.3
3.5
3.3
0.2
2.9
17.1
.44
.56
TABLE A-3
REACTIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS-R-RAQS/79 SIP CONTROL LEVEL
# SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79 80 81 82 83
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
64
65
66
0
0
SURFACE COATING (IND.)*
SURFACE COATING (ARCH.)
SURFACE COATING (MARINE)
SURFACE CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
SURFACE CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
MANUFACTURING & MISC. LOSSES
PESTICIDES (COMMERCIAL)
PESTICIDES (RESIDENTIAL)
COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD & AGRICULTURE
METALURG1CAL
SAND & SOIL PLANTS
CONCRETE BATCHING
STONE QUARRIES
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
ABRASIVE BLASTING FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS (MINERAL PRODUCTS)
WOOD PRODUCTS
FIXED & FLOATING ROOF STORAGE
MARKETING/TRANSFER
ELECTRIC GENERATION (STEAM)
ELECTRIC GENERATION (GAS TURBINE)
BOILERS (INDUSTRIAL)
BOILERS (COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONS)
ENGINE TESTING
NATURAL GAS (PRIMARY SPACE HEATING)
LIQUFIED PETROLEUM GAS
MISCELLANEOUS (FUEL COMBUSTION)
AGRICULTURAL DEBRIS
FOREST MANAGEMENT
RANGE IMPROVEMENT
WEED ABATEMENT
WILDFIRES
STRUCTURAL FIRES
UTILITY EQUIPMENT
CUTBACK ASPHALT
DOMESTIC SOLVENT USAGE
STATIONARY & AREA SOURCE
SUBTOTAL
24.1
16.1
4.0
0.02
16.2
4.2
2.7
34.9
1.8
0.2
3
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.7
14.6
0.6
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
5.5
4.2
5.3
140.1
24.8
16.6
4.0
0.02
16.5
4.2
2.7
36.0
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<Q.l
0
0
0
1.7
14.6
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
5.7
4.3
5.5
143.3
25.5
17.1
4.1
0.02
16.7
4.2
1.9
37.1
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.5
5.3
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
5.9
3.4
5.6
135.0
25.9
7.6
4.1
0.02
13.6
4.2
0.9
38.2
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.4
4.5
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.2
3.5
5.7
122.5
19.1
7.8
4.1
0.01
11.9
2.1
0.7
39.1
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.2
3.8
0.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.2
3.6
5.9
112.2
19.4
8.0
4.3
0.01
12.0
2.1
0.7
40.2
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
1.1
3.1
0.7
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.3
3.7
6.0
113.5
(1981 RFP REVISION)
84 85 86
17.6
8.2
4.3
0.01
12.0
2.1
0.6
32.8
1.8
2.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.3
3.8
6.2
105.5
15.8
8.4
2.6
0.01
12.2
2.1
0.6
33.7
•1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.5
3.9
6.3
101.0
16.1
8.6
2.6
0.01
12.2
2.1
0.6
33.7
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.7
4.0'
6.5
102.0
87
16.1
8.7
2.6
0.01
12.2
2.1
0.6
35.4
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0 "
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.9
4.1
6.6
104.2
88
16.4
8.9
2.7
0.01
12.2
2.1
0.6
36.2
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
6.9
4.2
6.7
105.6
TONS/DAY
89 90
16.7
9.1
2.7
0.01
12.2
2.1
0.6
37.1
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
7.1
4.2
6.9
107.4
16.9
9.3
2.7
0.01
12.6
2.1
0.6
38.0
1.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0.7
1.6
0.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
.0.5
0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
2.6
0.2
7.3
4.3
7.0
109.5
*SEE TABLE - FOR INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATINGS SUBCATEGORIES
TABLE A-3 - continued
REACTIVE HYDROCARBON
# SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
COMMERCIAL AVIATION
GENERAL AVIATION (EXHAUST)
MILITARY
RAILROAD
SHIPS/BOATS
L.D.A. COLD/HOT START
L.D.A. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.A. HOT SOAK
L.D.A. DIURNAL
L.D.T. COLD/HOT START
L.Q.T. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.T. HOT SOAK
L.D.T. 'DIURNAL
M.D.V. COLD/HOT START
M.D.V. RUNNING EXHAUST
M.D.V. HOT SOAK
M.D.V. DIURNAL
H.D.G. COLD/HOT START
H.D.G. RUNNING EXHAUST
H.D.G. HOT SOAK
H.D.G. DIURNAL
H.D.D. COLD/HOT START
H.D.D. RUNNING EXHAUST
STREET MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLE
OFF- ROAD HEAVY DUTY
OFF- ROAD RECREATIONAL
FARM EQUIPMENT
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS SUBTOTAL
TOTAL RHC EMISSIONS
1.0
0.2
2.9
0.6
4.8
22.5
47.2
33.7
13.7
3.4
8.7
4.6
2.5
0.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
NF
4.9
1.0
0.6
NF
1.0
1.5
7.6
1.3
0.3
0.4
166.9
307.0
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.0
19.1
34.8
25.3
13.8
4.2
7.1
4.8
3.2
0.9
1.3
0.8
0
0
3.8
1.0
0.7
0
2.0
0.8
3.5
5.0
0.5
0.5
143.0
286.3
EMISSIONS-R-RAQS/79 SIP
80 81 82
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.2
19.4
30.5
22.1
12.7
4.3
6.5
4.6
3.1
0.9
1.2
0.8
0
0
3.7
0.9
0.7
0
2.1
0.7
3.7
5.1
0.5
0.5
134.1
269.1
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.2
19.6
27.1
19.1
11.1
4.1
6.0
3.7
2.8
1.0
1.1
0.7
0
0
3.6
0.8
0.7
0
2.2
0.7
3.7
5.2
0.5
0.5
124.3
246.8
1.2
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.5
17.9
21.6
16.3
9.7
3.9
4.9
3.2
2.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0
0
3.5
0.7
0.6
0
2.4
0.6
3.6
5.3
0.5
0.5
110.6
222.8
CONTROL LEVEL (1981 RFP REVISION) TONS/DAY83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
1.3
0.2
2.9
0.6
5.4
18.3
18.7
13.8
8.4
4.0
4.5
2.9
2.3
1.0
0.9
0.5
0
0
3.5
0.7
0.6
0
2.5
0.6
3.6
5.3
0.5
0.5
103.5
217.0
1.3 1.3
0.3 0.3
2.9 2.9
0.6 0.6
5.4 5.4
18.8
15.7
9.6
6.3
3.9
3.9
2.2
1.9
1.0
0.7
0.4
0
0
3.3
0.6
0.5
0
2.6
0.5
3.5
5.5
0.6
0.5
92.5
193.5
1.3 1
0.3 0
2.9 2
0.6 0
5.4 5
19
13
6
4
3
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
3
5
0
0
85
189
.2 1.2
.4 0.4
.9 2.9
.6 0.6
.4 5.6
.2
.8
.7
.6
.9
.5
.7
.6
.0
.6
.3
.2
.5
.4
.8
.4
.7
.7
.6
.5
.2
.4
1.0 1.0
0.4 0.5
2.9 2.9
0.6 0.6
5.6 5.6
20.2
12.6
4.5
3.1
4.0
2.9
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.4
0.3
0
0
4.0
0.4
0.3
0
3.0
0.4
3.9
6.0
0.6
0.5
81.2
190.7
TABLE A-4
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION TRENDS (1981 RFP REVISION)
t SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79 80 81 82 83 "
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
03
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
64
65
66
SURFACE COATING (IND.)*
SURFACE COATING (ARCH.)
SURFACE COATING (MARINE)
SURFACE CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
SURFACE CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
MANUFACTURING & MISC. LOSSES
PESTICIDES (COMMERCIAL)
PESTICIDES (RESIDENTIAL)
COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD 8 AGRICULTURE
METALURGICAL
SAND & SOIL PLANTS
CONCRETE BATCHING
STONE QUARRIES
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
ABRASIVE BLASTING FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS (MINERAL PRODUCTS)
WOOD PRODUCTS
FIXED & FLOATING ROOF STORAGE
MARKETING/TRANSFER
ELECTRIC GENERATION (STEAM)
ELECTRIC GENERATION (GAS TURBINE)
BOILERS (INDUSTRIAL)
BOILERS (COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONS)
ENGINE TESTING
NATURAL GAS (PRIMARY SPACE HEATING)
LIQUFIED PETROLEUM GAS
MISCELLANEOUS (FUEL COMBUSTION)
AGRICULTURAL DEBRIS
FOREST MANAGEMENT
RANGE IMPROVEMENT
WEED ABATEMENT
WILDFIRES
STRUCTURAL FIRES
UTILITY EQUIPMENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
42.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.7
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
43.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
4.0
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
44.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
00
3.8
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
46.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.7
0.7
<0.1
<0.1i!il.l
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
47.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.11.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
48.4
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.4
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
49.5
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.3
0.6
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
50.7
TONS/DAY
86 87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
51.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.0
0.6
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
52.8
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.0
0.6
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
54.0
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
2.8
0.6
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
55.0
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
2.7
0.5
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
56.1
STATIONARY & AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
SUBTOTAL 72.8 74.1
*SEE TABLE - FOR INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATINGS SUBCATEGORIES
75.5 76.6 77.8 79.0 80.0 81.0 81.9 82.8 84.1 84.9 85.8
TABLE A-4 - continued
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION TRENDS (1981 RFP REVISION)
1 SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79 80 81 82 83
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
COMMERCIAL AVIATION
GENERAL AVIATION (EXHAUST)
GENERAL AVIATION (EVAPORATIVE)
MILITARY
RAILROAD
SHIPS/BOATS
L.D.A. COLD/HOT START
L.D.A. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.A. HOT SOAK
L.D.A. DIURNAL
L.D.T. COLD/HOT START
L.D.T. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.T. HOT SOAK
L.D.T. DIURNAL
M.D.V. COLD/HOT START
M.D.V. RUNNING EXHAUST
M.D.V. HOT SOAK
M.D.V. DIURNAL
H.D.G. COLD/HOT START
H.D.G. RUNNING EXHAUST
H.D.G. HOT SOAK
H.D.G. DIURNAL
H.D.D. COLD /HOT START
H.D.D. RUNNING EXHAUST
STREET MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD HEAVY DUTY
OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL
FARM EQUIPMENT
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS SUBTOTAL
TOTAL RHC EMISSIONS
2.2
10.1
0
8.9
0.8
17.7
256.1
529.0
0
0
42.4
161.0
0
0
4.3
16.0
0
0
0
129.0
0
0
0
3.0
6.2
14.8
7.3
2.8
4.8
1216.4
1289.2
2.3
10.6
0
9.0
0.8
18.2
215.7
392.8
0
0
50.9
84.1
0
0
11.1
15.4
0
0
0
107.3
0
0
0
6.4
4.6
15.3
7.5
2.9
4.8
959.7
1033.8
2.4
11.1
0
9.0
0.8
18.8
218.2
352.5
0
0
50.3
77.8
0
0
11.8
14.3
0
0
0
109.7
0
0
0
6.7
4.2
15.8
7.7
3.0
4.8
918.9
994.4
2.4
11.8
0
9.0
0.8
19.0
223.1
320.4
0
0
48.3
72.2
0
0
11.9
13.0
0
0
0
113.1
0
0
0
7.1
3.8
16.0
7.8
3.1
4.8
887.6
964.2
2.4
12.5
0
9.0
0.8
19.2
230.8
301.2
0
0
50.5
67.6
0
0
11.7
11.7
0
0
0
116.5
0
0
0
7.6
3.6
16.2
7.9
3.2
4.8
877.2
955.0
2.4
13.1
0
9.0
0.9
19.3
237.0
272.1
0
0
51.9
63.7
0
0
11.7
10.6
0
0
0
120.0
0
0
0
8.0
3.5
16.5
8.1
3.2
4.8
855.8
934.8
84
2.4
13.8
0
9.0
0.9
19.5
16.7
8.2
3.3
4.8
TONS/DAY
85 86
2.4
14.5
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
245.3
241.6
0
0
51.6
57.6
0
0
11.6
8.9
0
0
0
110.5
0
0
0
8.9
3.4
16.9
8.3
3.4
4.8
819.3
900.3
2.0
15.0
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
17.5
8.5
3.5
4.8
87
2.1
15.5
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
244.4
219.6
0
0
50.6
51.6
0
0
11.4
7.6
0
0
0
97.5
0
0
0
9.9
3.5
18.0
8.6
3.6
4.8
778.3
861.1
88
2.0
16.1
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
18.6
8.8
3.6
4.9
89
1.9
16.6
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
19.1
8.9
3.7
4.9
90
1.8
17.1
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
240.9
202.2
0
0
50.0
45.2
0
0
11.3
6.2
0
0
0
99.3
0
0
0
11.4
3.8
19.7
9.1
3.8
4.9
756.3
842.1
TABLE A-5
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS-R-RAQS/79 SIP CONTROL LEVEL
# SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79 80 81 82
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
64
65
66
SURFACE COATING (IND.)*
SURFACE COATING (ARCH.)
SURFACE COATING (MARINE)
SURFACE CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
SURFACE CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (HALOGENATED)
DRY CLEANING (NON-HALOGENATED)
MANUFACTURING i MISC. LOSSES
PESTICIDES (COMMERCIAL)
PESTICIDES (RESIDENTIAL)
COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING
FOOD X AGRICULTURE
METALURGICAL
SAND S SOIL PLANTS
CONCRETE BATCHING
STONE QUARRIES
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
ABRASIVE BLASTING FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS (MINERAL PRODUCTS)
WOOD PRODUCTS
FIXED & FLOATING ROOF STORAGE
MARKETING/TRANSFER
ELECTRIC GENERATION (STEAM)
ELECTRIC GENERATION (GAS TURBINE)
BOILERS (INDUSTRIAL)
BOILERS (COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONS)
ENGINE TESTING
NATURAL GAS (PRIMARY SPACE HEATING)
LIQUFIED PETROLEUM GAS
MISCELLANEOUS (FUEL COMBUSTION)
AGRICULTURAL DEBRIS
FOREST MANAGEMENT
RANGE IMPROVEMENT
HEED ABATEMENT
WILDFIRES
STRUCTURAL FIRES
UTILITY EQUIPMENT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.6
0.7
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
42.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o"
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.7
0.7
<0.1
<0.1lA
1.0
<0.1
<0.1o'.j
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
43.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
4.0
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
o'.B
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
44.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.8
0.7
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
46.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
0
<0.1o"
0
0
0
0
3.7
0.7
<0.1
<0.11.11.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.'7
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
47.2
(1981 RFP REVISION)
83 84 85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.6
0.7
<0.1
<0.1i!i1.1
<0.1<o!iO'.B
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
48.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1o' '
0
0
0
0
3.4
0.7
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.2
<0.1
<0.1o!s
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
49.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1o'
0
0
0
0
3.3
0.6
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.2
<0.1
<0.1o!s
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
50.7
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.11.1
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
51.8
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
0.6
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
52.8
TONS/DAY
88 89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0. 1o'
0
<0.1o"
0
0
0
0
3.0
0.6
<0. 1
<0.1i!i
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
o'.B
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
54.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0. 1o'
0
<0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
0.6
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.3
<0.1
<0.1o!a
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
55.0
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• 0
0
<0.1o'
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
2.7
0.5
<0.1
<0.1i!i
1.3
<0.1
<0.1
o'.B
0.9
1.4
0.2
18.8
2.0
56.1
STATIONARY 4 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
SUBTOTAL 72.8 74.1 75.5
*SEE TABLE - FOR INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATINGS SUBCATEGORIES
76.6 77.8 79.0 80.0 81.0 81.9 82.8 84.1 84.9 85.8
TABLE A-5 - continued
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS R-RAQS/79 SIP CONTROL LEVEL (1981
t SOURCE CATEGORY 78 79 80 81 82 83
35
36
37
38
39
40
11
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
COMMERCIAL AVIATION
GENERAL AVIATION (EXHAUST)
GENERAL AVIATION (EVAPORATIVE)
MILITARY
RAILROAD
SHIPS/BOATS
L.D.A. COLD/HOT START
L.D.A. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.A. HOT SOAK
L.D.A. DIURNAL
L.D.T. COLD/HOT START
L.D.T. RUNNING EXHAUST
L.D.T. HOT SOAK
L.D.T. DIURNAL
M.D.V. COLD/HOT START
M.D.V. RUNNING EXHAUST
M.D.V. HOT SOAK
M.D.V. DIURNAL
H.D.G. COLD/HOT START
H.D.G. RUNNING EXHAUST
H.D.G. HOT SOAK
H.D.G. DIURNAL
H.D.D. COLD/HOT START
H.D.D. RUNNING EXHAUST
STREET MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLE
OFF-ROAD HEAVY DUTY
OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL
FARM EQUIPMENT
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS SUBTOTAL
TOTAL CO EMISSIONS
2.2
10.1
0
8.9
0.8
17.7
256 ;1
529.0
0
0
42.4
161.0
0
0
4.3
16.0
0
0
0
129.0
0
0
0
3.0
6.2
14.8
7.3
2.8
4.8
1216.4
1289.2
2.3
10.6
0
9.0
0.8
18.2
215.7
392.8
0
0
50.9
84.1
0
0
11.1
15.4
0
0
0
107.3
0
0
0
6.4
4.6
15.3
7.5
2.9
4.8
959.7
1033.8
2.4
11.1
0
9.0
0.8
18.8
218.2
352.5
0
0
50.3
77.8
0
0
11.8
14.3
0
0
0
109.7
0
0
0
6.7
4.2
15.8
7.7
3.0
4.8
918.9
994.4
2.4
11.8
0
9.0
0.8
19.0
223.1
320.4
0
0
48.3
72.2
0
0
11.9
13.0
0
0
0
113.1
0
0
0
7.1
3.8
16.0
7.8
3.1
4.8
887.6
964.2
2.4
12.5
0
9.0
0.8
19.2
194.3
253.6
0
0
42.5
56.9
0
0
11.7
11.7
0
0
0
116.5
0
0
0
7.6
3.6
16.2
7.9
3.2
4.8
774.4
852.2
2.4
13.1
0
9.0
0.9
_ 19.3
199.6
229.1
0
0
43.7
53.6
0
0
11.7
10.6
0
0
0
120.0
0
0
0
8.0
3.5
16.5
8.1
3.2
4.8
757.1
836.1
RFP REVISION)
84 85
2.4
13.8
0
9.0
0.9
19.5
16.7
8.2
3.3
4.8
2.4
14.5
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
206.5
203.4
0
0
43.5
48.4
0
0
11.6
8.9
0
0
0
110.5
0
0
0
8.9
3.4
16.9
8.3
3.4
4.8
725.0
806.0
86
2.0
15.0
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
*
17.5
8.5
3.5
4.8
TONS/DAY
87 88
2.1
15.5
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
205.8
184.9
0
0
42.6
43.5
0
0
11.4
7.6
0
0
0
97.5
0
0
0
9.9
3.5
18.0
8.6
3.6
4.8
688.9
771.7
2.0
16.1
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
18.6
8.8
3.6
4.9
89
1.9
16.6
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
19.1
8.9
3.7
4.9
90
1.8
17.1
0
9.0
0.9
19.7
202.8
170.3
0
0
42.1
38.1
0
0
11.3
6.2
0
0
0
99.3
0
0
0
11.4
3.8
19.7
9.1
3.8
4.9
671.3
757.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
TACTIC REEVALUATION WORKSHEETS
Tactic Reevaluation Worksheets la are the original evaluations done
for the Revised-RAQS as included in the 1979 SIP. Worksheets Ib are
reanalysis using new 1978 Emission Inventory, .Series IVb growth
indicators, and engineering reevaluation for this 1981 Annual Report
of Reasonable Further Progress.
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET ?la
Date: 1/30
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
RHC CO
. PI DRY CLEANING
RULE/REGULATION 67.2 DRY CLEANING EQUIPMENT
US.IfIG PETROLEUM - BASED SOLVENT
(2) Sourca category(ies) subject to the control:
(1.0. number and name)
07 Dry Cleaning (Mon-halogented)
NOV TSP
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Prohibits operation of dry cleaning equipment that does not follow specified procedures cr use specified eouioment
inclurfina prevention of liquid coating, solvent storage in closed containers with approved vents ven??nn of Srve
an^use ofTpfroved^l^ns6 "' ^ deVlCe "Mdl rS^<* h*"«rt°" «»« ^ «* '«« ™ (by
WSS ad?Pted as l?art of the original RAQS and therefore was assumed in the Rules and Regulations
basnne (TRENDS) 'emissions?6 *"*"'" pr°ject10ns)' This evaluation reassesses the effect of implementation on
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Date Adopted: 1/31/73 . '
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules):
All equipment installed after 1/31/78
On and after 1/1/30 for equipment installed prior to 1/31/73 that consumes 10,000 gal/year solvent
On ™H !fter /i/pf f equipment insta11ed P^or to 1/31/73 that consumes 5001 to 10,000 aal/year'so! ventOn and after 1/1/84 for equioment installed prior to 1/31/73 that consumes 2001 to 5000 nal/y^r solvent
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates •
Pollutant subject to control (circle ona and use separate sheet per pollutant): i RHC NCL TS?
(A) Sasaline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) SMssions *Affected
(C) Effectiveness', of *Control Measure
(D) Ovarall % Control *
(S) (C) = 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =
% } - (D) »
77
2.7
' 0
0
2.7
1.0
78
2.7
o.
o-
2.7
.1.0
• 73
.2.7
0
0
2.7
1.0
80
2.7
.65
1.8
0.9
.35
81
2.7
.65
1.8
0.9
.35
82
2.7
.65
1.3
0.9
.35
33
2.7
.65
1.8
0.9
.35
34
2.7
.00
2.2
0.5
.35
85
2'. 7
.80
2.2
0.5
.20
85
2.?'
.30
2.2
0.5
.20
37
2.7
.80
2.2
0.5
.20
S3
2.7
.30
2.2
0.5
.20
89
1
" 2.7'
.30
2.2
0.5
.20
90
2.7
.30
2.2
0.5
. 70
35 OC
2.7 2.7 •
:
.30 .30
2.2 2.2
0.5 • 0.5
.20 .20
*ALL PERCENiAGcS IN DECIMAL FORM
1 Fran TRENDS - page:_80 {Emissions from source categories
Note: This is from the 1977 Control Level case; not Rules 4 Regulations case.
2 The remaining emissions reflect thP Rules and Reflations case as it should be in. TRFNDS p. 32.
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
VICRKSHEET fib
Date:
TACTIC: P1 DRY CLEANING*
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
(me) co
RULE/REGULATION 67.2 DRY CLEANING EQUIPMENT
USING PETROLEUM - BASED SOLVENT
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
(I.D. number and name)
07 Dry Cleaning (Non-halogented)
NOV TSP
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Prohibits operation of dry cleaning equipment that does not follow specified procedures oc use specified equipment
- prevention of liquid coating, solvent storage in closed containers with approved vents, venting of dryer
hydrocarbon va"°rs * at least ™
*This control tactic was adopted as part of the original RAQS and therefore was assumed in the Rules and Regulations
case of Trends (i.e. baseline emission projections). This evaluation reassesses the effect of implementation onbaseline (TRENDS) emissions.
The emissions remaining (F) for 1980 were determined as follows: the 1978 emissions inventory for dry cleaningnon-halogenated) was 2 67 T/D of which 2.00 T/D were for major sources. The 1980 emissions inventory (majSrsources only/ wds 1.26 ~
1980 are (0.67 + 1.26)sources only) was 1.26 °- A«"™1"9 no emission changes for'non^ajor'sourcesi'thrtotar'emisslons'rema'ining in
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible:
Date Adopted: 1/31/78
APCD
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules):
All equipment installed after 1/31/78
On and after 1 /I/SO for equipment installed prior to 1/31/78 that consumes 10,000 gal/year solvent
On and after I/ 1/82 for equipment installed prior to 1/31/78 that consumes 5001 to 10,000 gal/year solvent.
On and after 1/1/84 for equipment installed prior to 1/31/73 that consumes 2001 to 5000 nal/year solvent
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHCJ CO NO,.v—/ *TSP
77 . 78 , 79
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(3) JSEmissions,*
Affected*
(C) ^Effectiveness/of,*
Control Measure
(0) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) =• 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) - E .
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) »2 1 - (D) -
2.7
0
0 .
0
0
2.7
1.0
2.7
0
0
0
0.
2.7
1.0
2.7
0
0
0
0
2.7
1.0
80 . 81
2.7
.39
.77
.30
0.8
1.9
.7
2.7
.87
.77
.66
1.8
0.9
.37
82 83 84 , 85 86 87 88 • 89 . 90 95 00
2.7
.90
.77
.75
2.0
0.7
.25
2.7
.98
.77
.75
2.0
0.7
.25
*ALL PERCENTAGES
2.7
1.0
.77
.77
2.1
0.6
.23
2.7
2.1
0.6
2.7 2.7 2.7
1
2.7 2.7
11
2.7 2.7
.
^~
*~
•
f
r
• Y
' • f
^^1 '
IN DECIMAL FORM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 From TRENDS - page: 80 (Emission from source categories 07) Emission Inventory Category #188
NOTE: This is from the 1977 Control Level case, not the Rules and Requaltions case.
2 of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate: The 1980 fiaure is based on the
frTa/rSITin'k ™« IL° °* °'8 I/D; The * effe<:tiveness is assumed to remain at 77%. The overall % control(0.8/2.7) (100S) = 30%. Threefore the % emissions affected (30/77) (100%) = 39%.
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: Engineering estimate based on 9055
control effectless on dryers and adjusted to account for some leaks and losses at other points in process.
4 The remaining emissions reflect the Rules and Regulations as revised for the baseline emission projections.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC
WORKSHEET =l
DATE: I/SO
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC) co
TACTIC: P2 Organic Compound Surface Cleaners
(and P26Additional Surface Cleaning Control)
NOV TSP
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
04 Surface Cleaning (Halogenated)
05 Surface Cleaning (Non-halogenated)
(3) Tactic description:
Control technology is available to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from solvent metal cleaning operations Treat
volatile organic compound emissions from surface cleaners larger than one square meter by one of the following
operational methods: carbon adsorption, refrigerated chilling or a method with demonstrated equivalent or bettercontrol efficiency.
NOTE: Tactic P2 as ar.alayzed here includes the total-estimated emission reductions attributed to both tactics
P2 Organic Compound Surface Cleaners and P6 Additional Surface Cleaning Control as included in R-RAOS.
(4)- Implementation:
Agency(ias) Responsible: APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: 6/79
Projected Effective Date: 1980/84
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NO TS?\—/ *
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(8) Start ssions*
Affected1
(C) ^Effectiveness, of,*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/0 (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (0) -
77
19.6
0
0 .
0
0
19.6
1.0
78
20.0
0
0
0
0
20.0
1.0
79
.20.3
0
0
0
0
20.3
1.0
80
20.6
0
. 0
0
0
20.6
1.0
81
20. S
1.0
.5C
.5C
10.4
10.4
.50
82
20.9
1.0
.•30
.SO
10. S
10.4
.30
83
21.2
1.0
.50
.SO
10.6
10.6
.50
84
21.3
1.0
.50
.SO
10.7
10.6
.SO
85
21'. 5
1.0
.50
.50
10.3
10.7
.SO
as
21.7
1.0
..50
.30
10.9
10.8
.30
37
21.3
1.0
.SC
.50
10.9-
10.9
.SO
88
22.0
1.0
.50
.50
11.0
11.0
.SO
89
22.1
1.0
.50
.50
11.1
11.0
.50
90
22 ..3
1.0
.50
.50
11.2
11.1
.50
95 GO
23.2 24.2
1
l.Oj 1.0
.50 .50
.50 .50
11.7 12.!
U-.6 12.1
.501 .30
1 From TRE.NDS - page:_32
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories Q4> °5
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1b
Date: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
fRHC) CO
TACTIC: P2 Organic Compound Surface Cleaners
RULE/REGULATION 67.6
NO.TSP
(2) Source category(ies) 'subject to the control:
(I.D. number and name)
04 Surface Cleaning (Halogenated)
05 Surface Cleaning (Non-halogenated)
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Most of the degreasing operations in the County are small (i.e. less than one square meter) cold degreasers.
The rest are open-top, vapor degreasers. Operational techniques for all degreasers and certain equipment
modifications are required by the adopted regulation. These include such control devices as 1) use of improved
lid to minimize air agitation above the solvent vat, 2) use of a 0.7S freeboard to vat width ratio to
reduce drafts near the air/solvent interface and 3) placement of label summarizing efficient operating
requirements concerning disposal of waste solvents and the covering and draining of degreased parts.
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Date Adopted: 7/2S/79
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules): 1980/1982
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions*• Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control
(B) (C) ' D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (Dl ' E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) «
J 1 - (D) »
77
6.2
0
0
0
0
6.2
1.00
78
16.2
0
0
0
0
16.2
1.00
79
16.5
0
0
0
0
16.5
1.00
80
16.7
0
0
0
0
16.7
1.00
81 I
17.0
1.0
.20
.20
3.4
13.6
.80
32
.17.0
1.0
.30
.30
5.1
11.9
.70
83
17.2
1.0
.30
.30
5.2
12.0
.70
84
17.2
1.0
.30
.30
5.2
12.0
.70
85
17.5
1.0
.30
.30
5.3
12.2
.70
86'
17.7
1.0
.30
.30
5.3
12.2
.70
87
17.7
1.0
.30
.30
5.3
12.2
.70
88
17.7
1.0
.30
.30
5.3
12.2
.70
89
17.7
1.0
-.30
.30
5.3
12.2
.70
90
18.0
1.0
.30
.30
'5.4
12.6
.70
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM1 From SIP/79 R-RAOS Supplemental Information - Emissions from source cateaories 04,-05) San Diego APCD 1/11/79Emission Inventory Category #'s 185, 186.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from thesource category - basis of estimate: No exemptions anticipated.
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: SDAPCD Engineering estimate.
EPA's CTG estimated 50% control effectiveness assumes worst case operating conditions. Many of the control
techniques are already in effect and assumed in the emission orojections (TRENDS). Therefore emission controleffectiveness has been estimated at 30% at full compliance.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET £la
Date: 1/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
RHC) CO
TACTIC- ?3 ARCHITECTURAL COATI'IGS*
RULE/REGULATION 57.0
(2) Sourca category(ies) 'subject to the control:
(I.D. number and name)-
02 Surface Coating (Arch)
NOV TSP
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Specifies maximum volatile organic material content for architectural coatings manufactured after 9/2/79.A person shall not sell or offer for sale, coatings which contain more then 250 gms'of VOC per liter as applied
(excluding water) or more then 350 gms of VOC per liter of coating as applied (excluding water) and is recommended
solely for interior use. Interior coating manufactured after September 2, 1980 is subject to the 250 gms ofVOC per liter limitation. '
* This control tactic was adopted as part of the original RAQS and, therefore, was assumed in the Rules andRegulations case of TRENDS (i.e. baseline emissions projections). This evaluation reassesses the effect
of implementation on baseline (TRENDS) emissions; not additional control below the. baseline.
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Date Adopted: 11/30/77
Effective dats(s) (note any phased compliance schedules):9/2/79 Arch Coatings 250 gms/liter
9/2/79 Interior 350 gms/liter
9/2/80 Interior Coatings 250 gms/liter
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): fRHC) CO NOV * TS.-
\^ x
77 73 79 80 31 82 83 84 85 85 87 39 90 95
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(8) ^Emissions *
Affected -
(C) %Effectiveness of *
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(S) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/Q (A) - (£) =
% 1 - (D) =
2S.3
0
25.3
I.D
27.1
?
27.1
1.0
27. 1
n
27.3
1.0
23.5
7.2
21.4
.75
29.1
22.0
7.4
.25
31.2
22.5
7.5
31.9
23.2
7.7
31.7
23.3
7.9
32.3
24.4
3.1
33.1
24.8
3.3
33. -3
23.1
O ,1
34.4
25.8
3.5
35.1
25.3
3.3
35.7
25.3
8.9
1
39.1
29.3
9.3
,1.2.-:
:s^
31 .9
n.t
->
'ALL PERCENlAGES'IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 021 From TRENDS - page; "0
NOTE: This is from the 1977 Control Level Case; not the Hules and.Regulations Case
2 Overall percent of omissions controlled - basis of estimate: Based on phased compliance with rule
3 The remaining emissions reflects the.! Rules and Rngulations case as it appears in TRENDS, p.32
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 i>
Date: 1/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
f \ ,'RHCj CO
TACTIC- P3 ARCHIT£CTURAL. COATINGS*
RULE/REGULATION,
(2) Source category(ies) "subject to the control:
(I.D. number and name).-
02 Surface Coating (Arch)
NOV TSP
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Specifies maximum volatile organic material content for architectural coatings manufactured after 9/2/79.
A person shall not sell or offer for sale, coatings which contain more then 250 gins'of VOC per liter as applied(excluding water) or more then 350 gms of VOC per liter of coating as applied (excluding water) and is recommended
solely for interior use. Interior coating manufactured after September 2, 1980 is subject to the 250 gms of
VOC per liter limitation. •
* This control tactic was adopted as part of the original RAQS and, therefore, was assumed in the Rules and
Regulations case of TRENDS (i.e. baseline emissions projections). This evaluation reassesses the effectof implementation on baseline (TRENDS) emissions; not additional control below the baseline.
Therefore no emissions reductions can be credited towards RFP.
The Baseline (TRENDS) Emissions were reevaluated for years 1978 and 1978 in light of the new 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) ImplementationAgency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Date Adopted: 11/30/77
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules):9/2/79 Arch Coatings 250 gms/liter9/2/79 Interior 350 gins/liter
9/2/80 Interior Coatings 250 gms/liter
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (.circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC)CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) SEmlsslons*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overs 11 % Control
(B) (C) « 0.
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) =• E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) •
% 1 - (0) •
77 1
27.3
0
0
27.3
1.00
78
16.1
0
0
16.1
1.00
79
16.6
0
0
16.6
1.00
80
17.1
0
0
17.1
1.00
31
7.6
0
0
7.6
1.00
82
7.8
0
0
7.8
1.00
83
8.0
0
0
8.0
1.00
84
8.2
0
0
9.2
1.00
35
8.4
0
0
8.4
1.00
86
8.6
0
0
8.6
1.00
87
8.7
0
0
8.7
1.00
83
8.9
0
0
8.9
1.00
89
9.1
0
0
9.1
1.00
90 1
9.3
0
'0
9.3
1.00
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN' DECIMAL FOPM ' "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. 1978 Value is from the new 1978 comorehensive inventory. 1979 to 1990 values are the control levels assumed as Iaure?*™ 2t,Ru1e -° 1mPlerentation (see line F on Worksheet la, previous page), Rule 67.0 was adopted orior to •the 1979 SIP, thus, emission reductions cannot be credited to 1979 SIP.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION:
WORKSHEET #1a
DATE: I/SO
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):®CO
TACTIC: P4.01 General Metal Parts 5 Product
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
N0y TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Metal parts and products coatings generally contain an average 62% organic solvents, which evaporate as the
coatings dry. Reformulation of the presently utilized coatings to a lower solvent content and installation
of carbon adsorption or incineration equipment will reduce hydrocarbon emissions from metal parts and oroductscoatings. ' v .
(4) Implementation:
Agency(fes) Responsible: APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: 4/79
Projected Effective Date: 1982
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC/ CO NO TS?
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions *Affected '
(C) Effectiveness-, of *Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control**
(B) (C) = 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =>
% 1 - (D) -
77
17.2
0
0
17.2
1.0
' 78
17.7
0
o.
17.7
1.0
79
18.2
0
0
13.2
1.0
80
18.3
0
0
18.9
1.0
81
19.1
0
0
•
19.1
1.0
32
19.4
.35
16.5
2.9
.15
33
19.7
.85
16.3
2.9
.15
84
20.0
.35
17.0
3.0
.15
85
20 -.4
.35
17.3
3.1
.15
35
20.8
.35
17.6
3.2
.15
87
21.1
.35
18.0
3.1
.15
88 •
21.5
.35
13.3
3. 2
.15-
39
21.9
.35
IS. 6
3. 3
.15
90
22. -3
.35
18.9
3.4
.13
95 OG
24.5 26.6-
.35 .35
:o.s 22.5
3.7 4.0
.13 .15
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page:32 (Emissions from source categories 01
Metal parts and products coating emissions were estimated to be 43% of industrial surface coating emissions (197
2000)2 Percent of emissions controlled - from the source category - basis of astisiate:
Assumes 67% control based on CTG plus additional controls for overall 85% control.
thru
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET libDate: 2/so
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
( RHC i CO
NOV TSP
TACTIC: P4.01 General Metal Parts and Products
RULE/REGULATION 67.3
(2) Source category(ies) 'subject to the control:(I.D. number and name)
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Metal parts and products coatings contain an average of 62% organic solvents, which evaporate as the coatings dry.
Reformulation of presently utilised coatings to a lower solvent content (i.e. 30%' fey volume) is required by Rule 67.3.
Revised 4/81 based on 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Date Adopted: s/9/79
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules): 1982
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control(B) (C) • 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) » E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) •
S 1 - (D) • J
77 1
18.1
0
0
0
0
18.1
1.0
78
4.8
0
0
0
0
4.8
1.0
79
5.0
0
0
0
0
5.0
1.0
80
5.1
0
0
0
0
5.1
1.0
81
5.2
0
0
0
0
5.2
1.0
aa
: 5.3
.70
.74
.52
2.8
2.5
.48
33
5.4
.70
.74
.52
2.8
2.6
.48
84
5.5
.70
.74
.52
2.9
2.6
.48
85
5.5
.70
.74
.52
2.9
2.6
.48
86
5.6
.70
.74
.52
2.9
2.7
.48
87
5.8
.70
.74
.52
3.0
2.8
.48
38
5.9
.70
.74
.52
3.1
2.8
.48
89
6.0
.70
.74
.52
.31
2.9
.48
90
6.1
.70
.74
.52
".32
2.9
.48
ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page: 23 (Emissions from source cateogires 01)
Metal parts and products coating emissions were estimated to be 43% of industrical surface coatina emissions(1975 thru 2000).
NOTE: The District has determined that the total hydrocarbon emissions projections (TRENDS, p, 23) for this source
cateogry conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate: APCD Engineering estimates that 70%
of sources will be affected due to-exemptions of small source (i.e. emitting less than 10 Ibs/day).
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
Reduce solvent content from M .30 .38 , ,nn62% to 30% of coating by volume (' " T77 * 75? ' x luo = 74"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET £1 a
DATE: :/ao
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
IRHC) CO
TACTIC: P4.02 Can and Coil Coatings
(2) Source catagory(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coatings (Industrial)
NOV TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Hydrocarbon reductions will result from reformulation of can and coil coatings with a lower organic solvent
content. A 100% reduction of hydrocarbon emission is anticipated due to can and coil coating reformulation.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: 4/79
Projected Effective Date: 1982
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): LRHCJ CO NOX TS?
77 . 78 . 79 80 31 . 82 33 84 85 . 85 87 90 95 00
(A) Baseline ( Trends)!
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions,*
Affected2
(C) ^Effectiveness: of *
Control Measure
(0) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) <= 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =% 1 - (0) *
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.4
1.0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.4
.1.0
.0.4
0
0
0
0
0.4
1.0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.4
1.0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.4
1.0
0.5
1.0
l.P
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
o
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
o
0.5
•1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.0 _
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
o
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0"
0
0.6 '
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0
0
*ALL PERCENiAGcS IN DECIMAL FORM
1 Fran TRENDS - page: 82 (Emissions from source categories 01
Can and coil coatings emissions were estimated to be 1" of emissions for in industrial surface coatings (1957 thru 2000,
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Psrcant effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 b
Date: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
(RHC) CO
TACTIC: P4-02 Can and Call Coatings
RULE/REGULATION 67-4_
(2) Source category(ies) 'subject to the control:
(I.D. number and name)
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
NO,TSP
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Rule requires reformulation of can and coil coatings to a water-based sealing compound.
Revised 4/81 based on 1978 Emissions Inventory..
(4) ImplementationAgency(les) Responsible: APCD
Data Adopted: 5/9/79
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules): 1982
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
. (B) ^Emissions*Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control(B),(C) » D
CE) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) • E
(F) Emissions Remaining. T/0 (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (D) «
77 I
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
78
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.3
1.0
79
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.3
1.0
80
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.3
1.0
81
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.3
1.0
82
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0
0
83
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0
0
84
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0
0
35
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0
0
86
0.3
i;o
1.0
1.0
0.3
0
0
87
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
0
0
88
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0
0
39
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0
0
90
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0
0
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page: -23 (Emissions from source categories 01) Can and Coil coating emissions were estimated
to be 1% of industrial surface coating emissions (1975 thru 2000). Emission Inventory Category #173.
NOTE: The District has determined that the total hydrocarbon emission projections (TRENDS, p. 23) 'for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimates: No exemptions:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: 100? control from regulation due tosubstitution of water-based sealing compound. ;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: l/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC"; co
TACTIC: P4.03 Paoer & Fabric Coatings
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
. 01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
NO,TSP
(3) Tactic description:
This tactic requires reduction of hydrocarbon emissions from the manufacture of paper and fabric such as magnetic
tape, adhesive tape, typewriter ribbon, photographic film, fabric reinforced plastics and vinyl coated fabricsheets through reformulation of the coatings.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: 5/79
Projected Effective Date: 1982
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates • . .
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO TSP
77 , 78 , 79 . 80', 81 , 82 83 , 84 , 85 86 , 87 38 39 , 90 .35 CO
(A) Baseline (Trends)l
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions ,*
Affected*
(C) SEffectiveness.of,*Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) = E
(F) Emissions Remaining7/D (A) - (E) =•
% 1 - (0) »
0.2
. 0
0
0.2
1.0
0.2
0
n
0.
0.2
. 1.0
•0.2
P'
0
0.2
1.0
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
1.0
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
1.0
0.2
1.0
.90.
0.2
<0.1
.10
0.2
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
1.0
•
0.2
<0.1
0.2
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.2
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.2 '
1.0
0.2 ••
<0.1
0.2
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.3
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.3
1.0
0.2
<0.1
0.3
1.0
0.3
<0;1
0.3
1.0
v
•
"*"
0.3
<0. :
^^*^
1 from TRENDS - page:82
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories __oi.J
Paper and fabric coating emissions were estimated to be 0.5!5 of industrial surface coatings (1975 thru 2000).
2 Percent of emissions controlled - from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATIONWORKSHEET #1b
Date: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
' (ftHCj CO
TACTIC: P4.03 Paper S Fabric Coatings
RULE/REGULATION 67.5
NOV TSP
(2) Source category(ies) 'subject to the control:
(1.0. number and name).-
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Requires hydrocarbon emission reductions from paper and fabric manufacture through coatings reformulation andadd-on control equipment. • •
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB
Date Adopted: 5/9/79
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules): 1932
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separata sheet per pollutant):.(RHc)CO TSP
77
(A) Baseline (Trends)lEmissions
(B) Emissions * .Affected 2
(C) XEffectiVenessvof *Control Measure3
(0) Overall { Control *(8) (C) =• 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (0) • E .
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (El -% 1 - (D) •
0.2
Q
0
0
0
0.2
1.0
78
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
1.0
• 79
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
1,0
80 , 81
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
1,0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
1,0
82 , 83 , 84
0.2
1.0
.90
.90
0.2
<0.1
,10
0.3
0.3
0.3
85
0,3
'
86 t 87 88 '• 89 , 90 ' 95
0.3 0.3
*ALL PERCENTAGES' IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page: 23 n _ (Emissions from source categories 01
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
, 00
0.3
^
^"
r
~^
f
r^
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Paper and fabric coatings emissions were estimated,to be 0.5% of Industrial surface coatings emissions (1975 thru 2000).
Emission Inventory Cateogry #174.
NOTE: The District has determined.that the total hydrocarbon emission objections (TRENDS, p. 23) for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis" as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled- from the source category-.basis of Estimate;
No'exemptions. . . . •• .- ... . ' .
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: . '
SDA'PCO Engineering estimate. . • . • ' . ' . . • ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION-
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: 1/80
(7) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
RHC) co-
TSP
TACTIC: P4.04 Auto Refirnshino
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
N0¥
(3) Tactic description:
Organic emissions from the coating operations of automotive refinishing are attributed to the volatile organiccompound content within the coating. The coatings are usually cured at ambient air temperatures or forced air
dried at temperatures up to 175°F resulting in emissions due to solvent evaporation. The tactic requires sub-
stitution of low solvent paints/primers and/or the installation of add-on control equipment such as incineratorsand carbon adsorption.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APC8
Scheduled for Adoption: 12/80
Projected Effective Date: 1983
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control {circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC CO NOV TSP
^^, X
77 , 78 . 79 80 . 81 . 82 83 , 84 85 85 87 " 88 89 , 90 95 00
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(2) ^Emissions *
Affected2
(C) XEffectiveness.of,*
Control Measure
(D) Ovarall % Control *(S) (C) - D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) - E .
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =2 1 - (D) «
5.0
0
0
5.0
1.0
5.2
0
0-
5.2
. 1.0
5.3
0
0
5.3
1.0
5.5
0
0
5.5
1.0
5,6
0
0
5.5
1.0
5.7
0
0
5.7
1.0
5.3
.85
4.9
0.9
.15
5.9
• V
.85
5.0
0.9
.15
5.0
.85
5.1
1.0
.15
6.1
.85
5.1
1.0
6.2
.85
5.3
0.9
.15 j .15
6.3
.85
5.4
0.9
.15-
6.4
.35
5.4
6.5
.85
5.5
1.0 ! 1.0
.15 .15
7.2
'
'.65
6.1
7.3 '
.85
6.5
1.1 i 1.2
.15 .15
1 Fro:n TRENDS - page:
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 01
Auto Refinishing emissions were estimated to be 12.6% of industrial surface coating emissions (1975-2000).
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate:
Assumes 35S control due surface coating reformulation with added controls for a total overall 85:8 reduction.
TACTIC RE-EVALUATION
WORKSHEET Jl b '
DATE: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC ) CO
TACTIC: P4.04 Auto Reflnishing
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coatings (Industrial)
NO,TSP
(3) Tactic description:
There are no low solvent lacquers, enamels or primers available at this time. If developed, higher solid enamels
and water-based primers/sealers would likely be required only for high-volume, complete car refinishing shops (not
smaller auto body shops). The cost-effectiveness of any add-on control equipment as suggested in the original
tactic will be evaluated prior to any rule adoption.
Revised 4/81 based on 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCO
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 12/80 adoption unlikely, ARB Technical Review Group priority B. Adoption could
occur in 1981 or 82.
Projected Effective Date: 1984 or 1985
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) SEm1ss1ons*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control
(B) (CV • 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (0) • E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/0 (A) - (E) •
J 1 - (01 •
77
5.3
0
0
0
0
5.3
1.0
78
5.1
0
0
0
0
5.1
1.0
79
5.2
0
0
0
0
5.2
1.0
80
5.4
0
0
0
0
5.4
1.0
81 I
5.5
0
0
0
0
5.5
1.0
32
5.6
0
0
0
0
5.6
1.0
33
5.7
0
0
0
0
5.7
1.0
84
5.7
.50
.66
.33
1.9
3.8
.67
85
5.3
.50
.66
.33
1.9
3.9
.67
86
5.9
.50
.66
.33
1.9
4.0
.67
87
6.0
.50
.66
.33
2.0
4.0
.67
88
6.2
.50
.66
.33
2.0
4.2
.67
89
6.3
.50
.66
.33
2.1
4.2
.67
90
fi.4
.50
.66
.33
'2.1
4.3
.67
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - paqe: 23 (Emissions from source categories 91) Auto Refim'shinq emissions are estimated to be
12.6? of industrial surface coating emissions (1975 thru 2000). Emission Inventory Category #175.
NOTE: The District has determined that the total hydrocarbon emission projections (TRENDS, p. 23) for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source cateoqry - basis of estimate: Estimated that'50% of sources are
complete car refinishers which would be subject to control.
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
3-1Current enamal S primers: 75? VOC (.75/.2S) = 3
Controlled enamel & primers: 50% VOC (.50/.50) = 1 Reduction:x 100 662!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: 1/80
0) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
CO
TACTIC: P4.05 Wood Furniture
(RHC;
N0»
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coating(Industrial)
TSP
(3) Tactic description:
This tactic would require hydrocarbon emission reductions from wood furnitiure finishings throi/h the substitutionof low solvent coatings and carbon adsorption or incineration control equipment.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: 9/80
Projected Effective Date: 1984
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separata sheet per pollutant): /RKC) CO no TS?V_y x
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(8) ^Emissions *
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of *
Control Measure'
(D) overall % Control *
(B) (C) • 0
(E) Tons /day Reduced
(A) (0) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/0 (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (D) =
77
5.0
0
0
5.0
1.0
73
5.2
0
0
5.2
.1.0
79
5.3
0
0
5.3
1.0
80
5.5
0
0
5.5
1.0
31
5.6
0
0
5.5
1.0
32
5.7
0
0
5.7
1.0
83 J
5.8
0
0
5.8
1.0
34
5;9
.35
5.0
0.9
.15
85
5.0
.85
5.1
0.9
.15
36
6.1
.85
5.1
1.0
.15
87
6 .2
.85
5.3
0.9
.15
83 •
6.3
.85
5.4
0.9
.15
89
5.4
.85
5.4
1.0
.15
90
6.5'
.85
5.5
1.0
.15
95
7.2
.85
6.1
1.1
.15
00
7.8 '
.«
5.5
1.2
.15
1 Frosi TRENDS - page:_32
*ALl PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 01
Wood furniture finishing emissions were estimated to be 12.6% of industrial surface coating emissions (1975 thru 2000).
TACTIC REEVALUATION
WORKSHEET fib
DATE: 2/80
(1). Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(me] co
NOv TSP
TACT IC: P4.05. Hood Furniture
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
:desc(3) Tactic description:
Reevaluation indicates that hydrocarbon emission reductions for wood furniture finishings could be achievedthrough the substitution of low solvent coatings. The cost-effectiveness of add-on control equipment as
suggested in the original tactic will be evaluated prior to any rule adoption.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 9/80 adoption unlikely. ARB Technical Review Group has assigned a Priority Cto this measure. Adoption could occur in 1980 or 1982.
Projected Effective Date: 1984
15) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): Ufflc) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(81 SEmisslons*Affected
(C) SEffectlveness of*Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control
(B) (C) « D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) » E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/0 (A) - (E) *
% 1 - (D) •
77
5.3
0
0
0
0
5.3
1.0
78
4.7
0
0
0
0
4.7
1.0
79
4.8
0
0
0
0
4.8
1.0
80
5.0
0
0
0
0
5.0
1.0
81
5.1
0
0
0
0
5.1
.1.0
82
5.2
0
0
0
0
5.2
1.0
83
5.2
0
0
0
0
5.2
.70
84
5. 3
0
0
0
0
5.3
.50
85
5.4
.80
.50
.40
2.2
12
.60
86
5.5
.80
.50
.40
2.2
3.3
.60
87
5.6
.80
.50
.40
2.2
3.4
.60
88
5.8
.80
.50
.40
2.3
3.5
.60
89
5.8
.80
.50
.40
2. 3
3.5
.60
90 I
5.9
.80
.50
.40
'2.4
5.5
.60
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM1 From TRENDS - pane: 23 (Emissions from source cateaories 01)
Wood furniture refinishina emissions were estimated to be 12.6% of total industrial surface coating emissions.(1975 thru 2000) Emission Inventory Category #176
NOTE: The District has determined that the total hydrocarbon emission projections (TRENDS, p. 23) for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate:
Estimate based on assumed reformulation of enamels with later reformulation of lacquers (by 1987).
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or orocedure - basis of estimate:Enaineerinq estimate.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: 1/30
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC) CO
NOv TSP
TACTIC: pa.os Aerospace
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
(3) Tactic description:
The tactic would require hydrocarbon emission reductions from surface coatings used in the aerospace industry
through coating reformulation. Hydrocarbon emissions due to paint stripping would also be controlled.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: AR8/APC3
Scheduled for Adoption: Not specified
Projected Effective Date: 1934
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separata sheet per pollutant): (RHC; ' CO NO,. TS?\^s' *
77 , 73 ,• 73 , 80 . 81 , 82 83 84 85 .85 87 " 88 • 89 , 90 05 00
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions *
Affected1
(C) JEffectlveness.'Of,*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(S) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) = E .
(?) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =2 1 - (D) =
9.2
0
0
9.2
1.0
9.5
0
0 '
9.5
.1.0
9.3
0
0
9.8
1.0
10.0
0
0
10.0
1.0
10.2
0
0
10.2
T.O
10.4
0
0
TO. 4
1.0
iQ.fi
0
0
10.5
1.0
in 7
.80
3.6
7-l
in Q
.80
3.7
7 •)
.20 ! .20
11.1
80
8.9
2.2
.20
11.3
30
9.0
2.3
11.5
.30
9.2
2.3
.20 j .20
11.7
.30
9 .<!
2.3
.20
11.9 13.1
r
.so
Q.
2.4
.20
.SO
10 5
1-1.2'
„
11 i
2.'5 ! 2.3
.20 .20
*ALL PERCENTAGES -IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page: 82 (Emissions from source categories 01 J
Aerospace coating emissions were-estimated to be 23% of industrial surface coating emissions (1975 thru 2000)
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
TACTIC RE-EVALUATION
WORKSHEET fib
DATE: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(m] co
TACTIC: P4.06 Aerospace
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
NO,TSP
Hydrocarbon emission reductions would be achieved through coating reformulation and controls on paint stripping.
Revised 4/81 based on 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: 1980 - Priority A by ARB Technical Review Group
Projected Effective Date: 1902/85
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(0) Overall % Control
(B) (C) • D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) • E
(F! Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) «
S 1 - (0) '
77
9.7
0
0
0
0
9.7
1.0
78
6.6
0
0
0
0
6.6
1.0
79
6.8
0
0
0
0
6.8
1.0
80
7.0
0
0
0
0
7.0
1.0
81
7.2
0
0
0
0
7.2
1.0
82
7.3
Q
0
0
0
7.3
1.0
83
7.4
0
0
0
0
7.4
1.0
84
7.5
0
0
0
0
7.5
1.0
85
7.6
.50
.80
.40
4.6
3.0
.60
86
7.8
.50
.80
.40
.47
3.1
.60
87
7.9
.50
.80
.40
4.7
3.2
. .60
88
8.0
.50
.80
.40
4.8
3.2
.60
89
8.2
.50
.80
.40
4.9
3.3
.60
90 I
8.3
.50
.30
.40
•5.0
3.3
.60
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page: 23 (Emissions from source cateogries 01) Emission Inventory Category #177
Aerospace coating emissions were estimated to be 23% of industrial surface coating emissions (1975 thru 2000).
NOTE: The District has determined that the total hydrocarbon emission projections (TRENDS, p.23) for this source
category conforms with EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate: Engineering estimate based on SouthCoast AOMD rule as applied to San Diego.
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: Engineering estimate based on SouthCoast AQMD rule as applied to San Diego.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET <?! a
DATE: 1/80
CD Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
' $HC ; CO
TACTIC: PI.07 Graphic Printing
(2) Source category(iss) subject'to the control:
01 Surface coating (Industrial)
HO.TSP
(3) Tactic description:
rf !!!e five maj°r tyP"5 of Panting operation: gravure, flexography, lithoaraphy, screen processand letterpress It is estimated that flexographic printing is the largest source of the five types
The tactic would require substitution of low solvent inks for those currently in use
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: 1/30
Projected Effective Date: 1983
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC CO NO TSP
, 77 , 78 , 79 80 . 31 . 82 83 , 34 85 86 87 " 88 89 . 90 35 CO
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) .^Emissions,*
Affected*
(C) ^Effectiveness, of,*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (0) »
1.5
0
0
1.5
1.0
1.6
0
o-
1.6
•1.0
1.6
0
0
1.5
1.0
1.7
0
0
1.7
1.0
1.7
0
0
1.7
1.0
1.7
0
0
1.7
1.0
1.7
.70
1.2
0.5
.30
1,3
.70
1.2
0.6
.30
v.a
.70
1.3
0.5
.30
1.8
.70
1.3
0.5
1.9
•.
'.70
1.3
0.6
.30 i .30
1.9
70
1.3
1.9
.70
1.4
o.s Ins
,30
2.0 i 2.2 ! 2.4 '
i !
.1 i
i
i
i '
.70 .70 ! .70
1
1.4 I 1.5 1.7
n K io.71 I 0.7j ;
, 30 ' . 30 ' . 30 ">0
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page:_82 (Emissions from source categories
Graphic printing missions to be 3.3% of total industrial surface coatina emissions (1975
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
thru 2010)
TACTIC RE-EV.UUATION
WORKSHEET #lb:
DATE: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC) co
TACTIC: P4.07 GRAPHIC. PRIHTTNR
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coatings (Industrial)
NOV TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Of the five major types of printing operations: rotogravure, flexography, lithography, screen process and
letterpress; the EPA CTG proposes controls for rotogravure and flexographic processes only.The ARB model rule
is similar to the CTG. However, rotogravure and flexography printing operations do not exist in San Diego
Therefore, the CTG and model rule would not apply. Due to the characteristics of existing graphic arts
operations, which make hydrocarbon control very difficult, delay in adoption of an applicable rule is expected.
Potential control effectiveness is not estimated at this time. Emission Level reevaluated from 1978 Inventory.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 1/80 adoption not met. Possible adoption in 1985 or 84 with annalvsisoccurring as part of 82 SIP preparation
Projected Effective Date: Unknown
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutantj:.(RHCj CO NOX TSP
87 88'• 89 , 90 ' 95 . 00
(A) Baseline (Trends)lEmissions
(S) JSEmissions *Affected2
(C) XEffectiVenesSTOf*Control Measure3
(D) Overall % Control *(B) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) -E .
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/0 (A) - (E) -
Z 1 - (D) "
1.5
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
UNDET
0.2
0.2
:RHINEI
0.2
0.2
0.2
Q-2,
0.2
0-2
0.2
0-2
0.2
0,2
0.2
o,2
0.2
0.2.
0.2
0 >
0.2
9 -•
0.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 From TRENDS - page: 23 (Emissions from source.categories Q1
surface 2000)
NOTE: The District has determined, that the total hydrocarbon emission objections (TRENDS, p 23) for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baselinTemissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled- from the source category-.basis of Estimate; N/A
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: N/A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET 21 a
DATE: 1/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
CO
TSP
TACTIC: P4.03 OTHER SPECIAL COATINGS
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coating (Industrial)
NOy
(3) Tactic description:
Refers to coatings used on surfaces other than wood or ferrous metals.Hydrocarbon emission reductions would beachieved through the use of reformulated coatings of lower solvent content.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: 7/79
Projected .Effective Date: 1934
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates .
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC. CO ;(0 TSP
77 , 78 , 79 80 81 , 82 83 . 84 35 86 87 % 88 39 . 90 35 00
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions *
Affected2
(C) ^Effectiveness: of,*
Control Measure
(0) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) * 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) « E .
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/0 (A) - (E) *
X 1 .- (D) -
1.4
0
0
1.4
1.0
1.4
0
o'
1.4
.1.0
1.5
0
0
1.5
1.0
1.6
0
0
1.5
1.0
1.6
0
0
1.6
1.0
1.6
0
0
1.6
1.0
1.6
0
0
1.6
1.0
1.6
.70
1.1
0.5
.30
1.7
.70
1.2
0.5
.30
1.7
.70
1.7
.70
JLJL
0.5
.30 .30
1.8
.70
1 ?
0.6
.30
1 Q1 . J
.70
1 •>
0.5
.30
1-9
.7n
1..3
O.S
.30
2.0
70
,.,
?n
1.4 i 1.5
0.6 0.7
.30 .30
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN CECIMAL, FORM
1 From TRENDS - page:32 (Emissions from source categories 01 J
Other special coatings emissions were estimated to be 3.5% of total industrial surface coating emissions (1975-2000)
2 Percent of emissions controlled - from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness'of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
TACTIC RE-EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #11>
DATE: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(m] co
TACTIC: PI.03 OTHER SPECIAL COATINGS
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
01 Surface Coatings (Industrial)
NO,TSP
(3) Tactic description:
The reformulation of coatings of lower solvent content for use on plastics and other exotic materials is not
foreseen at this time. EPA CTG or ARB model rules applying to- this source are not anticipated. Further study
will be necessary as part of the continuing planning process. Potential control effectiveness is not estimatedat this time.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 7/79 adoption not met.
Projected Effective Date: Unknown
(5) Emission P.eduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per po1lutantj;.(RHC) CO KOX TSP
77
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ZEraissions * .
. . Affected2
(C) SEffectiVeriesSvof *
Control Measure3
(D) Overall 5! Control *
(B) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (0) = E .
(F) Emissions RemairtingT/0 (A) - (E) -Z 1 - (D) « '
1.5
1.5
~7fl
2.3
2.3
• 7<1
2.5
2.5
80" , 81
2.5
2.5
2.5
UNDE
2.5
82 83 84 85 86
2.6
•ERMIHI
2.6
2.6
D
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.3
^
2.8
2.8
88 '•
2.9
2.9
.89
2.9
2.9
90 '
2.9
2.9
95
3.2
3.2
. 00
3.2
3.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*ALL PERCENTAGES 'IN DECIMAL FORM
T From TREND'S - page; 82 (Emissions from source.categories 01 J
Other special coating emissions were estimated to be 3.5% of industrial.surface coating emissions (1975-2000)
Emission Inventory Category #182.
NOTE: The District has determined, that the total hydrocarbon emission projections (TRENDS, p. 23) for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled- from the source category -.basis of'estimate;
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure • basis of estimates . •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC (RE)EVALUATION
WORKSHEET =0a
DATE: April i/ 1980
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC ; co
v—sNOV
TACTIC: P8a Fixed and Floating Roof Storane
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
21 Fixed and Floating .Roof Storage
TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Current APCD Rule 61.1 limits hydrocarbon emissions from bulk gasoline storage tanks. Further
reduction of HC emissions can be achieved by such measures as requiring rubber seals on Udder
connections and improving control on gauging instruments of floating roof tanks. These measures
and an increased minimum emission control efficiency, 908 to 35%, for fixed roof tanks will be
included in a revised APCD Rule 61.1.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APC8
Scheduled for Adoption: 3/79
Projected Effective Date: 1980
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates . .-.".'
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): UHCi CO HOU
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) ^Emissions *Affected2
(C) ^Effectiveness' of *
Control Measure
(0) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (0) = £
(F) Emissions RemainingT/0 (A) - (E) =Z 1 . - (0) «
77
0.9
0
0
0
0.3'
78
1.0
.0
0
. 0
1.0
• 79
1.0
0
0
0
1.0
80
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
31
•1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
82
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
S3
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
84
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
85
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
86
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
87"
1.0.
0.5
0.5-
0.5
0.5
38 •
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
89
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
90
0.9-
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
95
1.0
0.5
0.5
0:5
0.5
CO
1.1
0.5
Q.5
0.6
0.5
1 from 'RENOS - page:_32 . (Emissions from source.categories
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
TACTIC: P8a FIXED 4 FLOATING ROOF STORAGE
RULES/REGULATIONS: 61.1
(2) Source category(ies) subject to
the control: (ID No. S name)
21 FIXED S FLOATING ROOF STORAGE
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #lb
DATE: April, 1981
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled'(Circle):
(RHCJ co
NOx TSP
(3) Rules/Regulations Description:
0-istrSct Rule 61.1 Increases minimum control efficiency for hydrocarbon emissions from bulk gasoline storage tanks
from 901 to 955. This Includes control of gasoline truck loading at bulk plants. Truck transfer (both loading and
unloading was formerly considered in Tactic P8b - Marketing and Transfer. Truck unloading is still considered InTactic P8b. Using the 1980 emissions Inventory update and source test data, it was determined that the control
efficiency increased from 90% to approximately 91%.
The baseline emissions for 1978 and 1979 Increased from the TRENDS 1.0 tons/day to 1.7 tons/day In order to
Include the truck loading emissions at the bulk plants. The 1980 emissions inventory Increased the baseline
emissons from 1.0 tons/day to 1.6 tons/day. The projected baseline emissions were increased proportionately.
The emissions reduction for 1980 decreased 0.5 tons/day to 0.1 tons/day due to the fact that one plant increased
emission control efficiency from 90% to 95%, one plant Increased emissions control efficiency from 90% to 925,
and four plants remained at 90%. (The overall emission control efficiency Increased from 90% to 90.7%.)
Assuming an Increased minimum control efficiency from 90% to 95% Is met 1n 1985, the Interim years are adjusted
stepwise as follows:
1980 90.7%
1981 91.6%
1982 92.4%
1983 .93.3%
1984 94.1%
1985 95.0%
(5) emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHCJ CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(3) "Emissions*
Affected
(C) ".Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(Q) Overall % Control
(8) (C) = 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) = E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D U) - IE) «
I 1 - (D) =
77
1.9
0
0
1.9
1.0
78
1.7
0
0
1.7
1.0
79
1.7
0
0
1.7
1.0
80
1.6
.07
0.1
1.5
.93
81
1.6
.16
0.2
1.4
.84
82
1.6
.24
0.4
1.2
.76
83
1.6
.33
0.5
1.1
.67
34
1.6
.47
0.7
0.9
.59
35
1.6
.5
0.8
0.8
.5
86
1.6
.5
0.8
0.8
.5
87
1.6
.5
0.8
0.8
.5
88
1.4
.5
0.7
0.7
.5
89
1.4
.5
0.7
0.7
.5
90
1.4
.5
0.7
0.7
.5
'ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1. From 1978 Emissions Inventory - 1980 Emissions Inventory Update and trends ratioed to the 1980 baseline.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
TACTIC ' "'EVALUATION
WORKSHEET f 1 a
DATE:iI3o
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHCJ co
TACTIC: PBb Marketing ?< Transfer
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
22 ''-larketing and Transfer
NOV TSP
(3) Tactic description:
APCD Rules 61.2, 61.3 and 61.4 require control of hydrocarbon emissions during 1) the loading of mobile
tank trucks at bulk terminals, 2) the transfer of gasoline from the mobile tank truck to any stationary
storage tank, and 3) the transfer of gasoline from the stationary storage tank into motor vehicle fuel
tanks. Rule 61.2 would be amended to require 95% control (by weight) of hydrocarbon vaoors during gaso-
line transfer from bulk storage facilities into mobile transports with 550+ gallon capacity. Rule 61.3
would be amended to require 95% control of hydrocarbon due to gasoline transfer from mobile transports
at service stations built after July, 1, 1978, that pump 9,000 gallons per month. Service stations
built prior to 7/1/73 and pumping less than 9,000 gallons per month require: only 90% control. Rule
61.4 would be amended to require 95% control of hydrocarbon during transfer of gasoline from any stor-
age tank (with 550+ gallon capacity) into any motor vehicle fuel tank. Rule 61.4 limits "spitback" of
gasoline during transfer to motor vehicles to not more than 10 occurences per 100 cars.-
Tactic 8b requires control efficiencies at al1 gasoline transfer points to increase to 95%. Cutout
rate would be limited to 8 gallons per minute to reduce spillage. There would also be replacement of
specified current in-use vapor recovery nozzles with other nozzles which minimize soillage. The tactic
would provide for 32% control in 1980 increasing to 50% in 1985 and continuing through 2,000.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APC3
Scheduled for Adoption: 3/79
Projected Effective Date: 1980-1935
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates •
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC • CO NO,, IS?V J A
77 , 78 ,- 79 ,80 81 . 33 83 84 85 36 87 " 88 69 90 35 CC
(A) Baselina (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) Emissions *
Affected2
(C) ^Effectiveness, of,*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *(S) (C) * D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (0) «
1 From TRENDS - page:
18.2
0
0
18.2
1.0'
18.6
0
0
18.6
1.0
82
13.6
0
0
13.6
1.0
8.5
.32
2.7
5.3
.68
7.6
.36
2.6
5.0
.64
6.7
.39
2.4
4.3
.61
5.7
.43
2.3
3.4
.57
4.8
.46
2.2
2.6
.54
3:9
.50
'•'•
1.9
.50
3.9
.50
212.0
1.9
3:9
•
.50
1.9
2.0
.50 .50
3.8
.50
1.9
1.9
.50
3.3
.50
1.9
3.3' ! 4.1 ! 4.3 -
i !
!
1 i
^-|— I"
1 1 '.501 .50 ! 501 ;
] 9 j 7 n i •) ii _.- | .. -
i ! i
l.S 1 1-9 | 2.1 J2.1
j .50 | .50 | .50 j .30
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 22 )
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of astiniata:
P8b MARKETING S TRANSFER
RULES/REGULATIONS: 61.2. 61.3, and 61.4
(2) Source category(les) subject to
the control: (ID No. 4 name)
22 MARKETING 4 TRANSFER
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION TACTIC:
WORKSHEET fib
DATE: April, 1981
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
(RHCJ co
NOx TSP
(3) Rules/Regulations Description:
In September 1978, the County Board of Supervisors, acting as the-Air Pollution Control Board, amended District's
vapor recovery regulations to require 95% recovery by December 31, 1982, during vehicle refueling (Phase II
controls) and by Octobr 1978 during underground tank loading at the gasoline stations (Phase I controls). The
District rule that regulates loading of tank trucks and trailers requires 95% control of emissions generated
during truck loading. Truck loading Is now considered In Tactic P8a - Fixed and Floating Roof Storage. The 1980
emissions Inventory determined that, as of December 31, 1980, approximately 651 of the gasoline throughput meets
95% Phase 1/95% Phase II controls; and 35% of the gasoline throughput meets 95% Phase 1/90% Phase II controls.
The baseline emissions for 1978 were Devaluated from the TRENDS 18.6 tons/day to 14.6 tons/day, in order tff
exclude the truck loading emissions 3t the bulk plants. The 1979 emissions were assumed to be 14.6 tons/day. The
1980 emissions Inventory decreased the gasoline emissions from 8.5 tons/day to 5.6 tons/day. The 1980 baseline
emissions accounted for 65% of the throughput using Phase II and 35% without Phase II.
Assuming the Increased minimum control efficiency from 90% to 95% is met by December 31, 1982 (as called for in
Rule 61.4) the interim years are adjusted stepwise as follows:
Baseline Emissons
Emissions Remaining
1980
1981
1982
1983
1980
1981
1982
1983
PERCENT (%)
PHASE II (90%)
65%77%
88%
100%
PHASE II (95%)
65%
77%
88%
100%
THRUPUT USING CONTROLS
NO PHASE II
35%
23%
12%
0%
NO PHASE II
35%
23%
12%
0%
The emissions factors used were:
11.892 lbs/103 gal for Phase I (95% control)
1.605 lbs/103 gal for Phase II (95% control)
2.15 lbs/103 gal for Phase 11 (90% control)
Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(3) ".Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control
(8) (C) = D
(t) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) = E
!F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) =
1 1 - (D) »
77
14.0
<.01
<.l
14.0
1.0
78
14.6
<.01
<.l
14.6
1.0
79
14.6
<.01
<.l
14.6
1.0
80
5.6
.06
0.4
5.3
.94
31
4.5
.10
0.4
4.0
.90
82
3.4
.14
0.5
2.9
.86
83
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
84
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
85
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
86
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
87
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
88
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
39
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
90
2.2
.25
0.6
1.6
.75
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1. From 1978 Emissions Inventory - 1980 Emissions Inventory Update and trends ratloed to the 1980 baseline.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #la
DATE: 1/30
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC) co
TACTIC: P21 DRY CLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLEHE)
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:06 Ory Cleaning lHalogenated)
NO*TSP
(3) Tactic description:
In the original analysis for R-RAQS, using ARS's reactivity classification, dry cleaning halogenated solventswere not considered reactive. However EPA's reactivity classification includes halogenated solvents among the
reactive organic compounds. Therefore, emission reductions were estimated and included in the R-RAOS/SIPsupplement - San Diego APCD (1/11/79).
Hydrocarbon reductions would be achieved by 1) venting the dryer through activated carbon or equivalent controlequipment and 2) other prescribed operating procedures.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APC8
Scheduled for Adoption: 3/30
Projected Effective Date: 1934
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separata sheet per pollutant): (RHC CO HO TS?
••^ *r X
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) Emissions *
Affected*
(C) JSEffectiveness.of,*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(B) (C) =• 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) .(0) = E
(F) Emissions Regaining
T/0 (A) - (E) =% 1 - (D) =>
77
4.6
n
o
0
0
4.5
1.0'
78
4.5
Q
0
0'
•4.6
1.0
• 79
4.6
Q
0
0
4.5
1.0 i
80
4.6
0
0
4.6
1.0
31
4.6
0
0
0
4.6
1.0
32
4.5
0
0
4.6
1.0
33
4.6
0
0
0
4.5
1.0
34
4.6
1 .0
.58
2.7
1.9
.42
85
4.6
.53
2.7
1.9
.42
85
4.6
.53
2.7
1.9
.42
37 "
4.5
.58
2.7
1.9
.42
83
4.5
CO
2.7
1.9
.42
39
',,
58
2.7
1 Q
.42
90
4.6
qo
•> 1
1.9
.42
95 00
it
_4.£J_4.6
j! ^
i '
]! 'r
.™] .501i
? 7 ' ? 7
T J 1-9
.42 I .42
1 From TRENDS - page: 23
*ALL PERCtNTAGES.-IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 06_
Emissions for source category 03 under total hydrocarbons (TRENDS, p.23) were taken to be reactive for the baselineemissions case
2 Percent of emissions controlled - from the source category - basis of estimate:
No exemptions assumed
3. Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
Controlled emissions = 7 lbs/100 Ibs clothes cleaned
Uncontrolled emissions \'i lbs/100 Ibs clothes cleaned ^ 100 = 58% .
TACTIC RE-EVALUATION
WORKSHEET *1 b
DATE: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
|RHC) CO
TACTIC: P21 Dry Cleaning (Perchloroethylene)
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:96 Dry Cleaning (Halogenated)
NOV TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Hydrocarbon reductions would be achieved by 1) venting the dryer through activated carbon or equivalent control
equipment and 2) other prescribed operating procedures.
The Baseline (TRENDS) Emissions were reevaluated in light of the new 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) Implementation:
Agancy(ies) Responsible: APCD
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 3/80 adoption won't be met. ARB Technical Review Group Priority A.Anticipated adoption by 10/01
Projected effective Date: 1982
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
S~\Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHCJ CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
. (B) ^Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control
(B). (C) =• D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) =• E
(F) Emissions Remaining. T/D (A) - (E) =•
% 1 - (0) = ^
1 77
4.6
0
0
0
0
4.6
1.00
78
4.2
0
0
0
0
4.2
1.00
79
4.2
0
0
0
0
4.2
1.00
30
4.2
0
0
0
0
4.2
1.00
81
4.2
0
0
0
0
4.2
1.00
82
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
83
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
34
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
85
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
36
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
87
4.2
1,0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
38
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
89
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
90
4.2
1.0
.50
0.50
2.1
2.1
0.50
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page: 23 (Emissions fromsource categories 06) Emission Inventory Category *187
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source cateaory - basis of estimate: No exemptions
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: Based on proposed rule and EPA
CTG estimate.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: 1/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
(RHC ; CO
TACTIC: P23 "ARIME COATING
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
03 Surface Coating (Marine)
NOV TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Existing APCD regulations (Rule 66) require the use of coatings which contain solvents of relatively low reactivity
Tactic P23 would require substitution of marine coatings reformulated with a lower solvent then currently allowedby Rule 66. High performance coatings would be required to replace high solvent coatings.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB/ARB
Scheduled for Adoption: 6/30/80 (was 9/79)
Projected Effective Date: 1981
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates .•"...
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separata sheet per pollutant): (RHCj CO NO TSP
,
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions •
(B) /^Emissions *
Affected2
(C) SEffectiveness-. of,*
Control Measure
(0) Ovarall % Control *
(B) (C) » D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) . E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (D) »
77
2.9
0
0
2.9
1.0'
78
3.0
0
0.
3.0
1.0
79
3.0
0
0
3.0
1.0
80
3.1
0
0
3.1
1.0
81
3.1
.35
1.1
•
2.0
.55
82
3.1
.35
1.1
2.0
.65
83
3.2
.35
1.1
2.1
.65
84
3.2
.35
1.1
2.1
.65
85
3.2
.35
1.1
2.1
.65
86
3.2
.35
1.1
2.1
.65
87
3.2
.35
1.1
2.1
.55
38
3.3
.35
1.2
2.1
.55
39
3.3
.35
1.2
2.1
.65
90
3.3
.35
1.2
2.1
.65
95
3.5
.35
1.2
2.3
.65
CO
3.6 !
'
.35
1.3
2.3
.65
1 rroai TRENDS - page; 82
*ALL PERCENTAGES !N DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories
2 Percent of emissions controlled - from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
TACTIC EVALUATION''WORKSHEET #lb
DATE: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
CO
TACTIC:P23 MARINE COATINGS
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
03 Surface Coatings (Marine)
N0y TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Existing Rule 56 requires use of coatings which contain solvents of relatively low reactivity. The EPA reactivity
classification considers all solvents used in marine coatings to be photochemically reactive. Emission reductions
would be achieved through reformulation of marine coatings with lower solvent content. There are few high solid
coatings currently in use. It is estimated that other marine coatings could be formulated with a 20-30% higher solid
content. Antifouling and construction primers are likely to be exempt from these reformulation requirements.
The Baseline (TRENDS) Emissions were reevaluated in light of the new 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 6/80 adoption unlikely - ARB Technical Review Sroup has not specified
priority. Tactic adopted with condition of nationwide compliance. Possible rule adoption 1932Projected Effective Date: Possibly 1985/86
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHCj CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
. (B) ^Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control
(B). (C) » 0
CE) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) • E
(F) Emissions Remaining
. T/D (A) - (E) •
I 1 - (0) •
77
3.0
0
0
0
0
3.0
1.00
78
4.0
0
0
0
0
4.0
1.00
79
4.0
0
0
0
0
4.0
1.00
80
4.1
0
0
0
0
4.1
1.00
81
4.1
0
0
0
0
4.1
1.00
82
4.1
0
0
0
0
4.1
1.00
83
4.3
0
0
0
0
4.3
1.00
84
4.3
0
0
0
0
4.3
1.00
35
4.3
0.7
.55
0.39
1.7
2.6
1.00
36
4.3
0.7
.55
0.39
1.7
2.6
1.00
87
4.3
0.7
.55
0.39
1.7
2.6
1.00
88
4.4
0.7
.55
0.39
1.7
2.7
1.00
89
4.4
0.7
.55
0.39
1.7
2.7
1.00
90
4.4
0.7
.55
0.39
1.7
2.7
1.00
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page 23 (Emissions from source cateaories 03) Emission Inventory Category *183
NOTE: The District has determined that the total hydrocarbon emission projections (TRENDS, p. 23) for this source
category conforms with the EPA reactivity classification and is used in this reanalysis as the baseline emissions.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate: Exempts- antifouling paint and construction
primer from this tactic. Engineering estimate of 30% exempt.
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: Engineering estimate of 55% based
on comparison of solvent content before and after reformulation.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: 1/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
'RHC'' CO
TACTIC:P24 CUTBACK ASPHALT
(2) Source category(les) subject to the control:
Cutback asphalt emissions were not includedin the 1975 Emissions Inventory.
NO*TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Cutback asphalt is a mixture of petroleum distillates and asphaltic cement, and is applied in a cold mix or
spray form. Hydrocarbon emissions occur during the mixing and stockpiling at the time of preparation and
during application and road surface curing at the job site. Emission reductions could be achieved throuah
substitution of slow curing cutbacks and emulsified asphalts for rapid and medium curing cutbacks
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: 6/79
Projected Effective Date: 1982
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates .
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC)
77 . 73 , 79 80 . 81 , 82 83 .84 85 . 35 87
CO NOX TSP
29 , 30 95
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) "Emissions *Affected2
(C) ^Effectiveness, of,*
Control Measure
(0) Overall * Control *
(•B) (C) » D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (0) - E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (D) =
4.2
0
0
4.2
1.0
4.4
0
0.
4.4
.1.0
. 4.5
0
0
4.5
1.0
4.6
0
0
4.5
1.0
4.7
0
0
4.7
1, |
4.9
.90
4.4
0.5
.10
5.0
.90
4.5
0.5
,0
5.1
.90
4.6
0.5
.10
5.2
.90
4.7
0.5
.10
5.3
.90
4.8
0.5
.10
5.4
.90
4.9 '
0.5
.10
5.6
.90
5.0
0.6
.10
5.7
.90
5.1
0.6
.10
5.3
.90
5.2
0.6
.10
5.3
.90
5.7
fl.fi
.10
6.9 -
.90
5.2
1.7
.10
1 Fran TRENDS - page: Hot 1n Tre"ds
*ALL PERCENTAGES !N DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories
2 Percent of emissions controlled • from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1b
Date: 2/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
CO
NOV TSP
TACTIC: P24 CUTBACK ASPHALT
RULE/REGULATION 67.7
(2) Source category(ies) 'subject to the control:
(I.Q. number and name)
(3) Rule/Regulation Description:
Reductions in volatile organic compounds will be achieved through required substitution of slow curing cutback
asphalts or emulsified asphalts for rapid and medium curing asphalts. Slow curing cutback asphalts are exempt.
The Baseline (Trends) Emissions were reevaluated in tiaht of the new 1978 Emissions Inventory.
(4) Implementation
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCD
Date Adopted: 8/79
Effective date(s) (note any phased compliance schedules): 1980/82
(51 Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(B) %£m1ss1ons*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control(B) (C) - D
(E) Tons/day Reduced(A) (D) > E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) •
% 1 - (D) -
77
4.2
0
0
0
0
4.2
1.00
78
4.2
0
0
0
0
4.2
1.00
79
4.3
0
0
0
0
4.3
1.00
80
4.4
.31
.72
0.22
1.0
3.4
0.78
81
4,5
.31
.72
0.22
1.0
3.5
0.78
82
4.7
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
3.6
0.78
83
4.8
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
3.7
0.78
84
4.9
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
3.8
0.78
85
5.0
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
3.9
0.78
86
5.1
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
4.0
0.78
87
5.2
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
4.1
0.78
88
5.3
.31
.72
0.22
1.1
4.2
0.78
89
5.4
.31
.72
0.22
1.2
4.2
0.78
90 I
5.5
.31
.72
0.22
'1.2
4.3
0.78
ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORP
1 From TRENDS - paqe: Not Included (Emissions from source categories )Emission Invenotry Category #142.
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source cateogyr - basis of estimate:Slow curing asphalts exempt * 360/&/11525 T/Y = .31
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:Enqineerina estimate 260T/Y ., . .360T/Y JZ Contro1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #1 a
DATE: 1/80
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
S~^,( RHC ! CO
TACTIC: P2S MANUFACTURING 4 MISCELLANEOUS LOSSES"(PHARMACEUTICAL, CHEMICAL AND OTHERMISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE)
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
08 MANUFACTURING 5 MISCELLANEOUS LOSSES
NOY TSP
(3) Tactic description:
Would require controls more stringent than the Districts' Rule 66. Hydrocarbon emission reductions would beachieved through direct flame incineration, direct flame incineration with primary heat recovery,carbon
adsorption, catalytic oxidation, catalytic oxidation with primary heat recovery or a method of equivalent orbetter efficiencies such as condensation.
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: 3/30
Projected Effective Date: 1982
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOX TSP.
. 77 , 78 , 79 80 . 81 . 82 83 , 84 85 85 37 " 88 89 , 90 95 00
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(3) S&iissions,*
Affected2
(C) ^Effectiveness, of*
Control Measure
(D) Overall % Control *
(?) (C) = 0
(E) Tons/day Reduced
• (A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) »
% 1 . - (0) »
13.5
0
0
0
0
18.5
1.0'
19.2
0
' 0
0
0
.19.2
1.0
19.8
0
0
0
0
19.8
1.0
20.4
0
0
0
0
20.4
1.0
21.0
0
0
0
0
21.0
1.0
21.5
.50
.90
.45
9.7
12.8
.55
22.1
.50
.90
.45
9.9
12.2
.55
22.6
.50
.90
AS
10.2
12.4
.55
23.2
.50
.90
.45
10.4
12.3
.55
23.3
.50
.90
.45
10.7
13.1
.55
24.4
.50
.90
.45
11.0.
13.4
.55
25.0
.50
.90
.45
11.3
13.7
.55
25.5
.50
.90
.45
11.5
14.1
.55
J ! .
26.2! 29.3 132.4
.50
.90'
.45
11.8
14.4
.55
• i
.50 1.50
'.90 J.90
.45 j.45i
1
13.2 J14.6
16.1 i.17.3
.55 j .55
1 From TRENDS - page; 32
*ALL PERCENTAGES • IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 08
2 Percent of emissions controlled - from the source category - basis of estimate:
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate:
(2) Source cateaory(ies) subject to the control:
08 Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Losses
'TACTIC RE-EVALUATION TACTIC: P25 Chemical Products Manufacturing
WORKSHEET ?lb
DATE: 4/81
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
CO
NOx TSP
(3) Tactic description:
The Baseline (TRENDS) Emissions were reevaluated in light of the new 1978 Emissions Inventory. Hydrocarbon emissions
reductions would be achieved through direct flame incineration, direct flame incineration with primary heat recovery,
carbon adsorption, catalytic oxidation, condensation or equivalent control device or method.
The EPA CTG for pharmaceutical manufacturing applies only to processing of synthetic products; organic products are
exempt. Emissions controlled by this tactic have been refined to only include those chemical product manufacturer's
anticipated as being affected by the SCM, Oraanic Chemical Manufacturing. The remaining emissions have been sub-
divided according to Table P-25 to reflect proposed control measure development. New tactic evaluation worksheets
will be developed in the 1982 SIP. •
TABLE P-25 for
TACTIC EVALUATION WORKSHEET P-25
This emission category has been refined into six new categories to more closely estimate the emissions controlled
by the proposed SCM (Source Control Measures)
El Tactic Name RHC T/D '78 Emissions SCM * NAME
P-25. 01
P-25. 02
P-25^03P-25. 04
P-25.n5'
P-25. 06
149
150
151
152
153
192
Chemical Products Mfa.
Paint Mfg.
Pharmaceuticals
Fiberglass
Ink Mfg.
Misc. VOC losses
9.8
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.1
23.7
Oraarvic Chem. Mfg.
11.' Paint Mfg.
Pharmaceutical Mfg
N/A
N/A
N/A
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: APCB
Scheduled for Adoption: Scheduled 3/80 adoption not met. Possible mid-1981 adoption
Projected Effective Date: 1983/84
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO NOx TS?
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
. (B) ^Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*Control Measure
(0) Overall I Control
(B). (C) = D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) * E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) =
J 1 - (D) = 1
1 77
18.5
0
0
0
0
18.5
1.00
78
9.8
0
0
0
0
9.8
1.00
79
10.1
0
0
0
0
10.1
1.00
80
10.4
0
0
0
0
10.4
1.00
81
10.7
0
0
0
0
10.7
1.00
82
11.0
. 0
0
0
0
11.0
1.00
83
11.3
0
0
0
0
11.3
1.00
84
11.5
.80
.90
.72
8.3
3.2
.28
35
11.8
.80
.90
.72
8.5
3.3
.28
86
12.1
.30
.90
.72
8.7
3.4
.28
87
12.5
.80
.90
.72
9.0
3.5
.28
88
12.3
.80
.90
.72
9.2
3.5
.28
39
13.1
.80
.90
.72
9.4
3.7
.28
90
13.4
.80
.90
.72
9.6
•
3.8
.28
* ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1 From TRENDS - page:-82 (Emissions from source categories 08) Emission Inventory Category =149
2 Percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate: 80"? of the sources are estimated
to be sufficiently large to be controlled.
3 Percent effectiveness of control device and/or procedure - basis of estimate: Control devices could be 90S
effective, but fugitive losses along the process line reduce estimated control to 70%.
4 Tactic P-25 was named Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Miscellaneous Products manufacture.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TACTIC EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #la
DATE:
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (circle):
RHC) (coj
TSP
(3) Tactic description:
TACTIC: f24 i'aximum Inspection and f'aintenance
(2) Source category(ies) subject to the control:
41 LDA Cold/Hot Start
42 LDA Running Exhaust
45 LOT Cold/Hot Start
46 LOT Running Exhaust
49 MDV Cold/Hot Start
50 fIDV Running Exhaust
This tactic involves implementation of an inspection and maintenance (I/M) orogram for San Diego registemd light-duty
auto, light-duty trucks and medium-duty trucks. Such vehicles would be subject to annual inspections for compliance
with applicable emission standards. Vehicles which failed the inspection would be renuired to have the necessary
repairs prior to a retest in order to assure comnliance. Repair costs would be limited to a maximum of S50 unless
there was evidence of control device tampering. The program would assume a continued emission-oriented maintenance
training for area mechanics at a level eauivalent to current Blue Shield station program. Initial calculations for
emission reductions effectiveness for l/p assumed estimates of 25% reductions across-the-board for all three controlled
pollutnats. In February 1979, after the original R-RAQS analvsis was published, EPA made available a comouter
analysis based on MOBIL 1, which revised the estimates of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide percent reductions. The
reanalysis assumed a 35 percent stringency factor (i.e. 35% failure rate) and mechanics trainino The anticipatedpercent (%) of emissions control by year are:
1975 1980 1932 1985 1987 1990 1995
RHC
CO
6.6%
13.4%
30.0%
45.2%
33.0?
52.7%
45.1%
55.3%
45.2%
57.3%
(4) Implementation:
Agency(ies) Responsible: ARB/BAR/Local Agencies
Scheduled for Adoption: 7/79
Projected Effective Date: 1902
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): (RHC) CO TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)'Emissions
(B) 5JEmissions *
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of *
Control Measure
(0) Overall X Control *
(B) (C) = 02
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions RemainingT/D (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (0) -
77
74.1
0
0
74.1
1.0
78
68.6
0
0
68.6
.1.0
79
63.1
0
0
63.1
1.0
80
57.6
0
0
57.6
1.0
81
54.1
0
0
54.4
1.0
82
51.5
.07
3.4
43.1
.93
83
40.4
.15
7.4
41.0
.85
84
45.4
.23
10.5
34.9
•.77
85
42.3
.30
12.7
29.5
.70
86
42.5
.34
14.5
28.0
.66
87
42.6
.38
16.2
26.4
.52
38
42.3
.41
17.5
25.2
.59.
39
42.9
.43
13.5
24.4
.57
90
43.1
.45
19.5
23.6
.55
95
47 .4
.45
21.3
26.1
. 55
00
'
51.2
.45
23.1
28.1
.55
1 From TRENDS - page:
*ALL PERCENTAGES-IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 41- 42- 45- 46- 49- 50 )
2 Overall percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate:
Application of EPA f'OBIL 1 analysis to San Diego case - conducted February 14, 1979.
WORKSHEET ^(continued)
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
TACTIC: ^24 faxi'mum Inspection and Maintenance
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet par pollutant): RHC (CO) flO TSPv_y
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 34 85 86 87 39 90 95 00
(A) Baseline (Trends )1
Emissions
(3) ^Emissions *
Affected .
(C) SEffectiveness.of *
Control Measure
(0) Overall % Control *
(8) (C) * D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (D) = E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) =
% 1 - (D) -
0
0
1.0
0
' 0.
1.0
0
0
1.0
671.4
0
0
671.4
1.0
634.0
0
0
634
1.0
596.6
.18
109.7
486.9
.82
559.7
.31
173.5
3S6.2
.69
522.4
.40
209.0
313.4
.60
434.7
.45
219.0
265.7
.55
472.6
.49
237.1
242.5
.51
474.6
.53
250.1.
224.5
.47
469.5
.54
251.3
218.2
.16.
464.5
t,
.56
259.0
205.5
.44
459.4
.56
256.3
203.1
.44
509.2
.58
294.5
214.7
.41
553.6
.58
320.5
233.1
.42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 From TRENDS - page:_126
'ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
(Emissions from source categories 41 • 42' 45' 46' 49' 50 )
2 Overall percent of emissions controlled from the source category - basis of estimate:
Application of EPA flOBIL V comouter analysis to San Oiego case - conducted February 14, 1979.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RULES/REGULATIONS EVALUATION
WORKSHEET #lb
DATE:
(1) Pollutant(s) Controlled (Circle):
TSP
(2)
TACTIC: M24 MAXIMUM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Source category(ies) subject to
the control: (ID Ho. & name)
NOx
(3) Tactic Description:
41 IDA Cold/Hot Start
42 LOA Running Exhaust
45 LOT Cold/Hot Start
46 LOT Running Exhaust
Calls for Implementtlon of an annual Inspection and maintenance program for San Diego registered light-duty autos
and trucks. (NOTE: Medium-duty trucks are not assumed to be subject to the program under this revaluation due to
the fact that I/M for MOT is not included In any of the legislation currently proposed.) Vehicles failing theinspection would have to be repaired with maximum repair cost set unless there is evidence of tampering.
This revaluation of the benefit from inspection and maintenance differs significantly from previous evaluations
since it is based on ARB EMFAC6C assumptions and not EPA's Mobil 1 computer analysis. EPA's Mobil 1 ISM benefit
assumes a slight reduction of emissions the first year of implementation of an ISM program, with increasing
emission reductions each additional year the program is in effect. ARB's assumptions are that the ISM benefit isconstant.
Presented below Is a comparison Table of the previously used ISM reductions used in the 1980 RFP Report based onEPA'j Mobil 1 Computer Analysis dated February 14, 1979 and the ARB assumed emission reductions supplied to the
District in a letter from Gary Rubenstein to the A1r Pollution Control Officer dated April 1, 1981.
POLLUTANT RHC
EPA's I Reduction
ARB's % Reduction
POLLUTANT CO
EPA's % Reduction
ARE' s % Reduction
1982
7%
11.3%
1982
18%
15.8%
1983
15%
11.3%
1983
31%
15.8%
1985
30%
11.3%
1985
45%
15.8%
1987
38%
11.3%
1987
53%
15.8%
1990
45%
11.3%
1990
56 i
15.8%
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
®'
CO NOx TSP
(•;) Saseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(3) "Emissions*
Affected
(C) ^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(S) Overall % Control
(8) (C) » D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) = E
(r) Emissions Remaining
T/0 (A) - (E) =
S 1 - (D) '
77 1 78
81.8
0
0
81.8
1.0
79
65.2
0
0
1.0
80
60.7
0
0
60.7
1.0
81
0
0
1.0
82 83
51.3
.113
5.8
45.5
.887
84 85
47.7
.113
5.4
42.3
.387
86 87
45.6
.113
5.4
40.4
.887
88 89 90
44.3
.113
5.1
39.7
.387
1. From Table
*ALL PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
Reactive Hydrocarbon Emissions Trends (1981 RPF Revision) (Emissions from Running Exhaust andHot/Cold Start for LOA 1 LOT.
2. Overall percent control - basis of estimate:
(5) Emission Reductions Estimates
Pollutant subject to control (circle one and use separate sheet per pollutant): RHC ( CO ; ' MOx TSP
(A) Baseline (Trends)1
Emissions
(3) ^Emissions*
Affected
(C) -^Effectiveness of*
Control Measure
(0) Overall 5 Control
(8) (C) » D
(E) Tons/day Reduced
(A) (0) » E
(F) Emissions Remaining
T/D (A) - (E) -
1 - (D) '
77 I 78
0
0
79
743.5
0
0
80
696.8
0
0
81
0
0
1.0
82 83 I
624.7
.158
98.7
526.0
.842
84 85
596.0
.158
94.2
501.8
.342
86 87
566.2
.158
89.5
476.7
.842
88 89 90
538.3
.158
35.1
453.2
.842
*AU PERCENTAGES IN DECIMAL FORM
1. From Table
2. Overall percent control - basis of estimate: EPA supplied MOBIL 1 coiaputer conducted analysis (February 14, 1979)
: Reactive Hydrocarbon Emissions Trends (1981 RPF Revision) (Emissions from Sunning Exhaust and
Hot/Cold Starts for LOA & LOT.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL REGISTERS
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 142 / Tuesday. July 22. I960. / Notices 48941
Issued in Al!aa»a. Georgia on th« llth day
ofJulylSSa - ::
fames C. Eastorday.
Concurrence:
Leonard F. Bittoer.
Chief Enforcement Counsel.
|FH Doc 90-H43* FiM T-ZMOt *U am)
BRUNO COOt MKVOt-M ' •
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY " .---;- - - . .
IFRL1545-7J "''-, ^.''-.;.
Air Quality; Clarification of Agency _•
Policy Concerning Ozone Sir* •. "'.'..
. Revisions and Solvent Raactrvro'ea- •-' •
AGENCY: Environmental Protection' '„ ''.„
Agency 0EPA)_,-;j<^j^;._^^-^ ; .
ACTION: Notice.' -iX-siS^^*?™*,•>• •':
. "BACKGROUND: This notice is published '
.under the authority ofsection 101(b) and
'-section 103 of the Clean Air Act The
notice provides further clarification of a;
policy announced in EPA's ". .-...'..'
"Recommended Policy pn.the Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds," 42 FK
35314-Ouly 8,1977) and "Clarification of
Agency-Policy Concerning Ozone SIP -
Revisions andSolvent Reactivities," 44 •
FR 32042 fjune,4.1979) and 45 FR 32424
(May 16.1380). , /;. ..V- ' !
-DISCUSSION: The previous^policy
statements on the control of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) noted that
despite concerns about their potential
toxicity 1.1,1-trichloroetbane (methyl •
chloroform) and methylena chloride are
negligibly photochemically reactive and
do not appretiablycontribute to the
. formation of ozone. Today's statement
expands the- list(45 FR 32424).of organic-
compounds (VOCs) of negligible
photochemical reactivity'to include the
following chloroHuorocarbons. [CFC] or^_
fluorocarbons (FCJ: • - .'.;.-.
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11): ' ..
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12);
chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22);
trifluoromelhane (FC-23);
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113): ,
dichlorotetraHuoroethane (CFC-114);
and chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115).
EPA has determined that these .
halogenated compounds are no more
photochemically reactive than methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride and
do not appreciably contribute to the
formation of ambient ozone.
Consequently, controls on emissions of
these compounds would not contribute
I to the attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone. EPA cannot. .*- •
approve or enforce controls on these
compounds as part of a Federally '.-. -
enforceable ozone State Implementation
Plan (SIP). EPA will take no action on
any measures specifically controlling •
emissions of these compounds which '
are submitted by the States as ozone SIP
measures for EPA approval. (See 45 FR,;
32424.)
However, EPA would like to reiterate
its continuing concern over the possible -
• environmental effects'from emissions, of
these compounds. As such. EPA is cot
precluding the possible future regulation-
of these compounds. . • —'
It should be recognized thai the two-.
halogenated compounds, raalhyl - *. .
chloroform and CFC-113. stated lobe "of
.negligible photochemical reactivity in-. -.-
the July 8,1977 Federal Register, have---
•been implicated in:the depletion of the •
stratospheric ozone lay en This layer is a
region of the upper atmosphere which -----
shields the earth from harmful.:?-
wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation that
increase the risk of skip cancer in .> >. •
humans. - .;• ..^'".'.cc-^'^r-'"-..-•.'.->":•'
In response to this concern, the; v:'.'r \?
Agency promulgated on March 17,1978-
(43 FR 11313). rules under the Toxic-.:-"---.
Substances Control Act (TSCA) to \^;-:
prohibit the nonessential use of fully -" >>
halogenated chloroflubroalkanes as
Aerosol propellants. Restrictions were
applied to all members of this class,- *
including CFC-113, since they are -
potential substitutes for CFC-11. CEC- -
12, CFC-114. and CFC-115, which are'
currently used as aerosol propellants.
The Agency is investigating control
options and substitutes for ';•-•"
: nonpropellant uses. '
EPA has proposed new source •
performance standards under Section •
111 for organic solvent cleaners (45 FR
39766k June 11.1980). These proposed
standards would limit emissions of the
reactive volatile organic compounds
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylens
as well as methyl chloroform, methylem
chloride, and trichlorotrifluoroethane
(CFC-113) from new. modified, or!....-:reconstructed organic solvent . ;
degreasers. If these standards are
promulgated. EPA will develop 2 _::
guideline document for States to uat In
.developing regulations required under
Section lll(d] for existing organic • - •
solvent cleaners that use any of the " r
designated compounds. :
Whether, and to what extent, methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride are -
human carcinogens or have other toxic '
effects, and to what extent methyl '
chloroform, CFC-113. and other CFCs
deplete the ozone layer, are issues of
considerable debate. Detailed health
• assessments of methyl chloroform,
methylene chloride, and CFC-113 are
being prepared by EPA's Office of
Research and Development.Theae*. '•..-,
assessment*willbaaubmicedkfor-- •>-
external review, indndiag-a revivrv* by -:
th e Science Advisory Board, prior to ••. •
promulgation of the rsgulanoaa and th»--
proposal of EPA guidance to States foe -
developing existing source'control ;
measures. The extent to which the
preliminary Ondicgs are affirmed by the .
review process may affect tire fiaalr - ?;-
rulemaking for new as .well aa existing;.-.
'sources. .-".-- .-. -•:•-.-.-• . -j
• Until these issues of environmental- r
impact are fully resolved, EPA remains:; .
• concerned that if.thes* chemical* are- ."
exempted from regolaoon. th»: -. • -_•.
substitution of escampiforannrKympt — "-
' sol vents cotud-reswlt ittlargeaicreasea--,:^
of emissiocs of pollutants that may hava--_j i «...— - v. w** i.-T-ri^i mufrfv^aif-^?'^'*"!'—'T ". :f^vj-"
The emisaionsoi CFC-22 and FC-23r—\
also of relatively.low.pbotcchemkal.-i^;-"-;
reactivity, are of continuing;coocaca'-" A1-:
with regard to rx«aibla ermronmentalvr-
effects.Consequefltly.EPAi3>ncilv
precluding the possible future regjtlaui
of these compounds as welU-ni'i-ir'T r-J':" '•
FinalIy..EPA wishes to poml-cul that/'-j
this notice addresses only d»Agency's. ^
lack of authority to indode in-Federally'•
approved SIPs-controb on substances •••-'•.
whose emissions do-aot"contributair.-_ •..,.'.
eiihec-directry or indirectly, to-.--.. -^- -->
concentrations of pollutants for which •-.
NAAQS cave been established under
Ssctiaa 1C9 of the ActThiapalicyjiorice
does, not address the^questienrCtSI?'-. . -
rneasures-whicsfeconsroVsubstajQces
contributing toccncentratioos of •— • •
~ pollutants for which NAAQS have been-
established, but which are-contended to-
be more strict than absolutely necessary
to attain and maintain theNAAQSrEPA
has no authority to exclude such. AL—
measures from SIPs.-.- .. .-.-: -..-:••
FO3 yUfTTHEH INFORMATION COHTAC7?' ."^
G. T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs- •--•
Operation* Bianch (MD-15J. Research, •
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711, c-
(919) 5-11-5228. FTS 529-3228.. .- - - ::
Date* jury IB. JS8a- ''"J7--"'~\. ".
Dgvirl G.Hawkia*. - ' : .' '"' ' ' •
Asi:3tant.-\diTiinistratfefarAir,NoisK andRadiation. ' '
(?R Ooc. W-S?r(l Fifed 7-a
CiUJHO CCCe S5SO-OWU
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thursday
January 22, 1981
Part VI
Environmental
Protection Agency
State Implementation Plans; Approval of
1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Plan
Revisions for Areas" Needing an
Attainment Date Extension; and
Approved Ozone Modeling Techniques;
Final Policy and Proposed Rulemaking
I
7182 Federal Register / VoL 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22,1981 / Rules and Regulations I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[A-fRL 1722-8]
State Implementation Plans; Approval
of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an
Attainment Date Extension
AQENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency.
SUMMARY: Provisions of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments require states that
have received an extension of the
attainment date for a national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone
or carbon monoxide beyond 1982 to
submit a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision by July 1,1982. This policy
describes the criteria that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will use to review these 1982 SIP
submittals and also updates-and
supplements the Administrator's
February 24,1978 memorandum,
"Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions," (43 FR 21673) and
subsequent guidance.
EPA proposed this policy on
September 30,1980 (45 FR S4855) and
announced a 60-day period for public
comment The comments received on
major issues, EPA's response to the
.comments, and the changes to the
proposed policy are summarized below.
A more detailed summary of comments
and the EPA responses have been
included in Docket No. A-79-43 and are
also available for review at EPA
regional offices.
DATES: Final policy effective January 22,
1981.
ADDRESS: Docket No. A-79-43,
containing material relevant to this
action, is located at the EPA Central
Docket Section. West Tower Lobby,
Gallery 1,401M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20480. The docket may
be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. on weekdays and a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying. A summary
of the comments received on the
proposed policy and EPA responses to
the comments are also available for
review at the EPA regional office
locations listed in Appendix E.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Additional information about the policy
is available from the following: General
policy contact1 Mr. Johnnie L Pearson,
Standards Implementation Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency (MD-
15), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5497.
Transportation policy contact Mr.
Gary C. Hawthorn, Office of
Transportation and Land Use Policy
(ANR-445), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington,
D.C 20460, telephone (202) 755-0803.
Vehicle inspection and maintenance
contact Mr. Donald White, Motor
Vehicle Emission Test Lab,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2585
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105, telephone (313) 668-4350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During
the 60-day comment period for the
proposed policy EPA received comments
from 28 organizations and individuals.
Comments from over 30 other
organizations and individuals were
received after the close of the comment
period.. EPA carefully considered all the
comments and made several changes to
the policy. Major issues raised by those
submitting comments, EPA's responses,
and any resultant changes in the policy
are summarized below. A more detailed
summary of comments and EPA
responses are included in Docket No. A-
79-43 and available at EPA regional
offices.
Attaining NAAQSs After 1987
In the proposed policy EPA
recognized that a few large urban areas
with very severe ozone and carbon
monoxide problems may not be able to
attain NAAQSs by December 31,1987,
the deadline set in the Clean Air Act
EPA proposed that such areas should
submit SIP revisions by July 1.1982 that
demonstrate attainment as soon as
possible after 1987 using additional,
more effective measures beyond those
required in other areas.
Some public and private organizations
commenting on this portion of the
proposal supported the course of action
outlined by EPA. Others believed,
however, that such a policy would
encourage some areas to slow or
abandon their air quality clean-up
efforts. For example, one state
environmental agency commented that
granting any delay was inappropriate as
federal policy and that asking the public
to accept additional years of poor air
quality was unacceptable. Several state
and local agencies stated they believed
that the EPA Administrator would be
exceeding his authority under the dean
Air Act if he accepted a-SIP that did not
demonstrate attainment by 1987.
The final EPA policy still permits the
submission from a few urban areas with
severe ozone and carbon monoxide
problems of SIPs that provide for
expeditious attainment of NAAQSs by a
1
1
I
3
I
specific date after 1987. The policy
makes more explicit however, EPA.
intent to carefully evaluate the
effectiveness of measures in SIPs for all
area and ensure that the most effective ,
measures hajre been adequately
considered in any area that does not
demonstrate attainment by 1987. ~
EPA recognized in the proposal that
current provisions of the Clean Air Act m
may not allow approval of a SIP that •
provides for attainment of NAAQSs •
after 1987 and that action by the
Congress may be necessary. EPA
considers any request to the Congress
for additional delay of attainment
deadlines to be a serious step and one
that should be considered only after it is
dear that all available and
implementable control measures will be J
adopted.
Providing Adequate Time for SIP
Adoption •
The proposed policy reiterated and •
expanded upon the Clean Air Act -
requirements that a fully adopted,
legally enforceable SIP revision must be ••
submitted- to EPA by July 1,1982. •
Several state and local agencies '"
responsible for SIP development
commented that they would be unable
to ensure the adoption and submittal of
all required measures by July 1982,
particularly if EPA guidance mentioned
in the proposed policy is not available
early in 1981. EPA recognizes that •
meeting the July deadline may be a •
problem for some areas, but is •
constrained by the Clean Air Act from
granting any time extensions. '
EPA will continue the practice of •
granting conditional SIP approval •
followed in acting on the plan revisions
due in 1979. If a SIP revision is in
substantial compliance with Part D of •
the Clean Air Act and the state provides •
assurances that remaining minor •
deficiences will be remedied within a
short time, EPA may approve the plan
with conditions that corrective actions
will be completed according to a
specified schedule. For example, if
missing regulations applying RACT to
required sources constitutes a minor •
deficiency in the SIP and the state •
commits to a schedule for submitting •
those regulations, then EPA may
conditionally approve the SIP. —
The proposed policy included the •
requirement that states must adopt |
regulations applying reasonably
available control technology (RACT) to
all sources of volatile organic •
compounds (VOCs) covered by a control •
technique guideline (CTG) and to all ••
other major sources of VOCs. EPA also
> announced its intent to issue additional —
CTGs during 1981. A number of agencies •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 7183
r insible for developing SIPS
G .aented that they do not have
sufficient resources to finalize
regulations for both CTG and non-GTG
source categories. Some of the agencies
also indicated that the time necessary to
satisfy state and local procedural
requirements makes it unlikely that the
required regulations will be fully
adopted by July 1982. A state
environmental agency, for example, ,
stated that although the agency agrees
in principle with the requirements for
regulating both CTG and non-CTG
source categories, the agency does not.
have adequate staff and financial
resources to complete the necessary
technical analysis and rulemaking
activities. In addition, the requirements
of the state administrative review
process cannot be met by July 1982,
even if rulemaking is limited only to
CTG sources. A local environmental
agency commented that it may not be
possible to submit regulations for source
categories covered by CTGs issued late
in 1981. In order for the regulations to be
included in the July 1982 submittal, the
local agency must provide the
regulations to the state by the end of
1981. j
To help ensure that states have
adequate opportunity to meet the July
32 deadline, EPA will issue the new
uTGs as early as possible in 1981. The
CTGs are in preparation and will be
available in draft form between January
and May 1981. The final CTGs will be
published between July and October
1981. If state and local agencies begin
now to develop the necessary data and
work with the draft CTGs, they should
be able to complete development of
regulations by July 1982.
Providing for the Implementation of I/M
Programs
The proposed policy included the
requirement that states submit by July
1982, the rules and regulations for
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
MJ programs, as well as documentation
of 10 other critical I/M program
elements. The proposed policy stated
that EPA would update I/M guidance for
determining I/M program adequacy.
Some state and local agencies
commented that guidance not available
for their use in planning and
implementing I/M programs should not
be used to evaluate the I/M portion of
the 1982 SIP. Many of these agencies
were concerned that updated guidance
would include new requirements which
could adversely affect I/M activities
already in progress and which could not
be completed by July 1,1982. Other
agencies commented that EPA should
not evaluate individual elements of an I/
M program, but should evaluate the
program as a whole;'that the I/M
guidance should be promulgated through
rulemaking to allow review and
comment by interested parties; and that
the intent of requiring the I/M public
awareness plan in the 1982 SIP is
unclear.
A state agency also questioned
whether additional, emission reductions
from other source categories could be
used to offset any shortfall from I/M,
rather than making the I/M program
more stringent That agency also
questioned whether; in a state with a
post-1978 attainment date and with
legislative authority which needed to be
changed before I/M effectiveness could
be increased, commitments to obtain
needed legislative changes were
adequate for the 1982 SIP, rather than
having the legislative changes
themselves before July 1982.
EPA's basic requirements for I/M
programs are included hi a widely
distributed July 17.1978 policy
memorandum. Subsequent clarifications
to that policy have defined the factors
involved in designing I/M program
elements and provided information on
designing programs which optimize
technical and cost effectiveness.
Additional information along these lines
will be provided.
The July 17,1978 policy, memorandum
will be the primary basis for
determining I/M program adequacy in
the 1982 SIP process. The final policy
has-been revised to reflect this. EPA
agrees that the policy should contain
provisions for those states that are
meeting an approved schedule, but will
not be able to make a complete I/M
submission by July 1982. Appropriate
changes have been incorporated into the
final policy. EPA also agrees that the I/
M program must be evaluated as a
whole, rather than element by element
EPA does not believe that I/M policy
and guidance needs to be promulgated
through rulemaking, but does agree that
review and comment by interested
parties are important The appropriate
place for rulemaking for I/M is the SIP
review and approval process. EPA feels
that the states and other interested
parties have always been extensively
involved in the policy and guidance
development process. EPA will continue
to seek such review and comment
EPA feels that the I/M public
awareness plan is critical for the
successful implementation of an I/M
program and that it must be included as
part of the 1982 SIP. EPA recognizes,
however, that much of the public
awareness activity should generally
have been completed before the 1982
SIP deadline and will work with the
states in developing and implementing
their public awareness plans. Guidance.
is available on what should be included
in a good public awareness plan.
If an I/M programs fails to achieve the
requisite emission reduction, then the
program will have to be modified to
obtain that reduction. Additional
emission reductions from other source
categories cannot be used to
compensate for a shortfall from I/M.
Because section 172(c) of the Act
requires all measures in the 1982 SIP to
be. legally enforceable, any further
legislative authority will have to be
obtained before the 1982 SIP is
submitted. A commitment to obtain such
authority will not be sufficient for the
1982 SIP.
Making Commitments to Implement
Transportation Measures
The proposed policy required that the
1982 SIP submittal include commitments
by state and local governments to
implement the necessary transportation
measures. The documentation of the
commitment must include identification
of costs, funding sources, and
responsibilities of state and local
agencies and officials. Several state and
local agencies commenting on the
proposal expressed concern about
making commitments to transportation
improvement projects that are only in
the early stages of planning and have
not been included in state and local
budgets or been approved for federal
funding.
The definition of implementation
commitments contained in Appendix C
has been expanded to clarify the form of
the commitment for projects that are
progressing towards implementation,
but have not received budget approvals.
Essentially, the implementation
commitment for these projects or
measures should be a schedule of the
major steps required to advance the
project through the planning and
programming processes. This schedule
should also contain an identification of
the responsible agencies that must take
significant actions to implement the
measure. An illustration of such a
schedule is also contained in Appendix
C.
If a particular measure cannot be
implemented because the necessary
funds cannot be obtained from the .
funding source identified in the schedule
and if the SIP planning agencies can
demonstrate compliance with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act requiring
priority treatment for projects important
for improved air quality and basic
transportation needs, then the measure
may justifiably be delayed. If this does
occur, another substitute measure may
7184 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
I
I
be needed for replacement to ensure
that NAAQSs are attained (see the
section on contingency plans).
Developing Monitoring and Contingency
Plans for Transportation Measures
The proposed policy included
requirements for developing a
monitoring plan for regularly assessing
the effectiveness of transportation
measures and a contingency plan for' -
implementing additional transportation
measures if forecasted emission
reductions do not occur. A number of
state and local governments commented
that they do not have sufficient time and
resources to develop monitoring and
contingency plans at the same time that
they are developing the measures to
meet the emission reduction targets for
transportation. Some of those
commenting interpreted the monitoring
requirements as being primarily for air
quality monitoring.
In the final policy the monitoring plan
requirements emphasize the use of
methods that rely on surrogate measures
and on data already being collected for
other purposes. The monitoring plan
need not include additional air quality '
monitoring.
The requirements for a contingency
plan have been revised to require a
listing only of transportation measures
and projects that, because of their
potentially advene effect on air quality,
will be delayed while a SIP is being
revised. The projects will be delayed
when the Administrator of EPA finds
that a SIP is inadequate to attain ozone
or carbon monoxide NAAQSs and calls
for a SIP revision under section 110(c) of
the Clean Air Act EPA has also adopted
the suggestion of a local transportation
planning agency and is requiring that
the SIP include a description of the
process to be used to develop and
implement additional transportation
control measures when they are
determined necessary.
Establishing Emission Reduction Targets
The proposed policy required state
and local officials to reach agreement on
the emission reductions necessary to
attain NAAQSs, the extent to which the
emission reductions will come from
controls on mobile or stationary sources,
and die responsibilities for
implementation of the measures. Several
comments were received noting the
difficulties in determining emission
reduction targets for meeting the ozone
NAAQS because of the form of the
standard, the characteristics of the
Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach .
(EKMA) model and the effects of
pollutant transport. Other comments
reflected confusion about where in the
SIP development process the
identification of targets would occur.
An August 1.1978 EPA policy
memorandum outlined the reasons for
establishing emission reduction targets
through a negotiated process involving
state and local officials from affected
jurisdictions. In the past, emission
reduction targets and responsibilities for
achieving the targets have sometimes
been determined without adequate
intergovernmental consultation. In some
instances, for example, states attempted
to require local agencies to make up
large shortfalls in needed reductions
entirely through transportation
measures without examining whether
other measures, such as more stringent
emission limitations-for stationary
sources, might make up some of the
shortfall.
The final policy has been revised to
help clarify the intent of die section on
emission reduction targets. The process
for negotiating emission reduction
targets becomes especially important in
those areas where the minimum control
measures described in subsections LB-
I.D are not sufficient to attain NAAQSs
and additional measures must be
evaluated and selected. The subsection
on analysis of alternatives has been -
revised to indicate that the results of the
evaluation of alternatives should be
used in defining emission reduction
targets.
Demonstrating Reasonable Further
Progress
The proposed policy included
requirements for demonstrating
reasonable further progress towards
attaining NAAQSs. A substantial
number of comments were received
objecting to the requirement for a
"linear attainment program" represented
graphically by a straight line from base
year to attainment year emissions.
Those commenting noted that many
control measures, particularly those for
vehicle emissions, have long lead times
and do not have significant effects
within the first few years after adoption.
Those measures that are implemented
within die early years will generally not
result in a linear rate of emission
reduction.
The final policy has been redrafted to
clarify that the linear attainment
program represents only the upper limit
for annual net emissions from 1980
through the year of attainment The
measures encompassed by the linear
attainment program include those in
both the 1979 and 1982 submittals.
Although there may be some lag time
before the measures in the 1982
submittal result in emission reductions,
reductions should already be occurring
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
as a result of measures in die 1979
submittal.
The final policy now also reiterates
the reporting requirements included in
the approval criteria for the 1979
submittal and asks that the annual
reasonable further progress reports be
combined with related information
already being submitted on July 1 of
each-year.
Ensuring Conformity of Federal Actions |
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act
requires that federal actions conform to
SIPs. The proposed policy indicated that|
states should, where possible, identify
the emissions associated with federal
actions planned during the period
covered by the SIP. A number of
comments received on that portion of
the proposed policy requested-
clarification of the process for ensuring
conformity and die respective
responsibilities of federal, state, and
local governments. The comments noted |
the potentially large number of actions
involved, die associated work load for
state and local governments, and die
lack of available state and local
resources. The comments also included
questions about die methods to be used
for determining conformity.
The final policy outlines the general
responsibilities of federal, state, and
local governments. Further clarification
will be provided in a proposed rule that
EPA intends to issue shortly. Section
176(c) states that the assurance of
conformity of federal actions is the
affirmative responsibility of the head of
each federal agency. EPA believes that
each federal agency should establish
criteria and procedures for making
conformity determinations and that
state and local governments should have
opportunity to review proposed criteria
and procedures, as well as the
individual conformity determinations
that result from their application. The
proposed rule that EPA is preparing _
encourages die use of existing review •
processes, such as those required by the |
National Environmental Policy Act and "
Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-05, to reduce die resources •
required for ensuring conformity. •
Interim criteria for use in making and •
reviewing conformity determinations are
included in an advance notice of _
proposed rulemaldng published by EPA •
on April 1,1980 (45 FR 21590). Criteria •
and procedures for evaluating the direct
and indirect air quality effects of
wastewater treatment facilities funded
under the Clean Water Act are included
in the section 318 policy published on
August 11.1980 (45 FR 53382).
Identification, during SB? preparation, of
the emissions associated with future
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 14 / Thursday. January 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 7185
ma* rederal actions will facilitate state
ant .al review of conformitydeterminations.
Consultation Among State and Local
Officials
Two state environmental agencies
commenting on the* proposed policy
thought that the consultation provisions
were generally unclear. A local planning
agency asked that the policy be
supplemented to indicate that the
designations of agency responsibilities
made by governors prior to the 1979 plan
submittals remain in effect A public
interest group requested that the policy
forbid states from making unilateral
changes in SIP provisions developed by
local governments.
Modifications were made in the
consultation provisions of the final
. policy to help clarify apparently
ambiguous points and to indicate that
new section 174 agency designations are
not necessary. Although EPA agrees that
a state should not revise a locally
developed SIP provision without
consulting local officials, EPA believes
that the regulations for implementing
section 121 of the Clean Air Act already
adequately cover such a situation and
provide opportunity for appeal to EPA if
adequate consultation does not take .
e.
Determining Data and Modeling
Requirements
The proposed policy required that
emission inventories should, where
possible, be prepared for a 1980 base
year. The policy also required that base
year and projected year emission
inventories for the ozone portion of the
SIP be seasonally adjusted annual
inventories. The proposal required the
SIP to be based on the most recent three
years of air quality data, generally
including data collected through the
third quarter of 1981. The proposal
recommended use of the city-specific
EKMA model to develop the ozone
portion of the SIP.
Several agencies responsible for
developing emission inventories
commented that agreements had been
reached and work had already begun on
inventories for base years other than
1980. The agencies recommended that
EPA remain flexible in the final policy,
and accept inventories for those other
base years. The final policy continues to
allow inventories for base years other
than 1980 to be used.
A number of state and local agencies
questioned the validity of requiring
•easonally adjusted annual inventories
jf VOCs. Most of those commenting
recommended that the inventories be
prepared for a typical summer weekday
instead. The final policy requires the
weekday inventory.
Several agencies indicated in their
comments that their normal processing
time to validate air quality data would
prevent them from using data through
the third quarter of 1981, if the SIP was
to be developed and submitted by July
1982. The final policy encourages the use
of data through the third quarter of 1981,
but allows states to use earlier data. If a
state selects to use earlier data, it still
must present a summary of air quality
data through 1981 in its July 1982
submittal and describe how the data
may affect the SIP.
State and local agencies that had
applied photochemical dispersion
models in their previous SIP
development work commented that they
should be allowed to use these models,
rather than the less sophisticated city-
specific EKMA model, in developing
their 1982 submittals. The final poltiy
encourages the use of the photochemical
dispersion models where the agency
developing the SIP has a demonstrated
capability to use such models and
wishes to do so. Use of a model other
than city-specific EKMA or its
equivalent must be approved by EPA.
Final Policy—Criteria for Approval of
The 1982 Plan Revisions
Introduction
In circumstances where a state has
received an extension beyond 1982 for
attaining a NAAQS for ozone or carbon
monoxide, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 [Section 129(c) of
Pub. L 95-85] require the state to adopt
and submit a SIP revision to the
Administrator of EPA by July 1,1982.
The areas that are affected by this
requirement are listed hi Appendix A.
The purpose of this notice is to outline
the criteria that EPA will use in
evaluating the adequacy of the 1982 SIP
revisions. These criteria fall into four
general categories: (1) Control strategies
and attainment demonstration, (2) SIP
development process, (3) data collection,
and (4) modeling. •
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require all SIPs for the areas that
have received an extension beyond 1982
to demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQSs for ozone and carbon
monoxide as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than December
31,1987. As a condition for extending
the attainment date, Congress also
required that each SIP contain certain
control provisions covering stationary
sources, vehicle I/M. and transportation
measures. The control provisions must
be included in the SIP for an area where
an extension has been granted, -
regardless of the date after December
31,1982 when attainment can be
demonstrated. These minimum
measures and their relationship to the
plan's attainment demonstration are
described in Section L Section I also
discusses the approach that EPA
believes should be followed by those
few large urban areas where air quality
problems are so severe that analyses
may indicate that attainment by 1987 is
not possible.
In addition to including a
demonstration of attainment the
development of the 1982 SIP must
conform to the process and follow the
procedures required by the Clean Air
Act and described in subsequent EPA
guidance. Section U identifies the major
steps in the SIP development process.
Selected EPA guidance documents for
the SIP process are listed in Appendix B.
Terms used in the transportation-air
quality process are defined hi Appendix
C. Also, the air quality and emissions
data bases to be used in developing the
1982 SIP must be updated. The data
requirements for both ozone and carbon
monoxide are explained in Section UL
The data base for the ozone portion of
the SIP must be sufficient to support at
least a Level ffl modeling analysis. The
requirements for a Level III analysis are
summarized in Appendix D.
Finally, Section IV describes the
status of the various air quality models
and alerts states to modeling
requirements. EPA recommends
application of city-specific EKMA or an
equivalent method for developing the
ozone portion of the SIP, unless the
agency preparing the SIP already has
the capability and wants to apply a
more sophisticated level of modeling.
For the carbon monoxide portion, EPA
recommends application of the models
identified in existing EPA guidance.
/. Control Strategies and Attainment
Demonstration
A. Summary
The Clean Air Act requires the 1982
SIPs to contain a fully adopted,
technically justified program that adopts
and commits to implement groups of
control measures that will result in
attainment of the ozone and carbon
monoxide NAAQSs no later than 1987
and that will provide reasonable further
progress in the interim. All plans must
contain the three categories of minimum
control measures described in this
section. If these minimum control
measures are not adequate to show
attainment by 1987, additional measures
which can be implemented by 1987 must
be identified and adopted. If all
measures which can be implemented by
I
7186 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
1987 are not adequate to demonstrate
attainment by 1987, additional measures
which can be implemented after 1987
must be identified and adopted and
attainment must be demonstrated by the
earliest possible date, the date of
attainment must be specified in all SIPs.
In order to ensure equity among the
areas unable to demonstrate attainment
by 1987, EPA intends to evaluate all SIPs
submitted in July 1982 for the
effectiveness of measures applied in all
areas. Should EPA find that any of the
areas not demonstrating attainment by
1987 have failed to adopt the moat
effective measures available, EPA will
compile a list of such controls and
require these areas to revise their SIPs
to include the more effective control -
measures.
Subsections B-D describe in detail the
minimum control measures which must
be contained in each plan submitted in
July 1982. The state must demonstrate
that adoption and implementation of
these elements will result in the
attainment of the ozone and carbon
monoxide standards by the most
expeditious date possible. Control
measures must be adopted in legally
enforceable form. The SIP submittal
must include implementation schedules
and commitments. Subsections E and F
describe reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstration
requirements. Subsection G describes
tha conformity of federal actions
requirement
B. Stationary Sources
Section 172(b) of the Clean Air Act
requires states to implement all
reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable and, in
the interim, maintain reasonable further
progress, including such reduction in
emissions from existing sources as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of RACT. In order to complete
the requirement to adopt all reasonably
available control measures, states mast
include as part of the 1982 submittal,
adopted regulations applying RACT to
the following categories of sources: (1)
All sources of VOCs covered by a CTG,
(2) all remaining major (emitting more
than 100 tons per year potential
emissions as defined under section
3020) of the Clean Air Act) stationary
sources of VOCs, and (3) all sources of
carbon monoxide emitting more than
1,000 tons per year potential emissions.
The guidelines for the 1979 ozone
submittals permitted states to defer the
adoption of regulations until the CTG for
a source category was published. This
delay allowed the states to make more
technically sound decisions regarding
the application of RACT. EPA
anticipates issuing a number of
additional CTGs in 1981 for various
source categories of VOCs. These
documents, in conjunction with the
previously issued CTGs, will address
most of the major source categories
which are of national importance.
Legally enforceable measures
implementing RACT for all sources
addressed by these documents must be
included in the July 1982 submittaL
There will remain numerous other
major sources of VOCs that may be of
local importance for which a CTG will
not be available. For the major sources
for which a CTG does not apply, a state
must determine whether additional,
controls representing RACT are
available. EPA will require the submittal
to include either legally enforceable
measures implementing RACT on these
sources or documentation supporting a
determination by the state that the
existing level of control represents
RACT for each of these sources.
If application of RACT to all sources
covered by a CTG and all other major
sources, together with implementation of
a vehicle I/M program and
transportation controls, does not result
in attainment of the ozone standards by
1987, then additional stationary source
controls must be adopted by the state.
C. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
All major urban areas needing an
extension beyond 1982 for attainment of
a standard for ozone or carbon
monoxide were required to include
vehicle I/M as an element of the 1979
SIP revision. States were required at
that time to submit only evidence of
adequate legal authority, a commitment
to implement and enforce a program
that will reduce hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide exhaust emissions
from light duty vehicles in 1987 by 25
percent, and a schedule for
implementation. Full implementation of
that program, in accordance with EPA's
established I/M policy, is required in all
cases by December 31,1982.
States with areas that have I/M
programs under development or
operational as part of their 1979 SIP
revisions were required to submit only
qualitative descriptions of their I/M
program elements in the 1979 SIP
submittaL The documentation discussed
below must be submitted by July 1982. if
not previously submitted as evidence of
compliance with the 1979
implementation schedule. The 1982 SIP
revision must include rules and
regulations and all other I/M elements
which could affect the ability of the I/M
program to achieve the minimum
emission reduction requirements. More
. specifically, the 1982 submittal must
I
I
5
I
1
include: (1) Inspection test procedures:
(2) emission standards; (3) inspectic
station licensing requirements; (4) -
emission analyzer specification and
maintenance/calibration requirements;
(5) recordkeepicg and record submittal
requirements; (S) quality control, audit,
and surveillance procedures; (7)
procedures to assure that noncomplying
vehicles are not operated on the pubic
roads; (8) any other official program
rules, regulations, and procedures; (9) a
public awareness plan; and (10) a
mechanics training program if additional
emission reduction credits are being •
claimed for mechanics training,
As part of the 1982 SIP review
process, EPA will-determine the overall
adequacy of the critical elements of m
each I/M program and, therefore, the •
approvabiliry of the 1982 SIP by •
comparing those elements to established
I/M policy. I/M program elements must
be consistent with EPA policy or a
demonstration must be made that the
program elements are equivalent.
State or local governments that have
I/M programs, but plan to increase the
coverage and/ or stringency of the
programs in order to achieve greater
reductions, must submit the progam
modifications in legally enforceable
form through the 1982 SIP revision
process.
If a state wishes to submit all or part
of the I/M elements required for the 1932
SIP revision before July 1982, with or
without other portions of the 1982 SIP
revision, EPA will review and evaluate
the submittal and take appropriate
action as expeditiously as practicable.
In the case of a partial submittal, EPA's
action will be limited to the available
program elements. Final action on the
total I/M program must be reserved
until all elements are submitted and
reviewed in order to assure that the
program satisfies the provisions in Part
D of the Clean Air Act.
If a state is implementing an I/M
program on an approved schedule which
extends beyond July 1,1982, and the
state is unable to finalize some of the
critical elem*ts of its I/M program in
time to include them in the 1982 SIP
revision, the state may submit those
elements at a later date. This later date
must, however, be identified and
justified by the state in its 1982 SIP
revision and be consistent with the I/M
implementation schedule in its 1979 SIP
submittal. In such cases EPA will review
the. available program elements and, if
adequate, conditionally approve the
I/M program on the submittal (by the
designated date) and approval of the
outstanding elements.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Federal Register / VoL 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22. 1981:/Rules and Regulations 7187
D."~~ nsportation Measures
'i ^ portion of the 1982 SUP addressing
emission reductions to be achieved
through the implementation of
transportation measures must include
the basic provisions listed below. "
Further guidance will be issued, as
necessary, to describe these
requirements hi greater detail.
1. An updated emission reduction
target for the transportation sector. As
discussed below, the target must be
determined by consultation among state
and local officials using the procedures
established under sections 121 and 174
of the Act
2. All reasonably available
transportation measures and packages
of measures necessary for the
expeditious attainment of the
transportation emission reduction target
Categories of reasonably available
transportation measures are identified
In section 108(f) of the Act The
submittal should present documentation,
based on technical analysis! of the basis
for not implementing any of the
measures identified in this section. The
1982 SIP submittal must contain
transportation emission reduction
estimates for adopted measures and
packages of measures for each year
veen 1982 and the attainment date.
. j reasonably available transportation
measures that have been adopted
between the submission of the 1979
revision Ad the preparation of the 1982
revision should be Included in the 1982
submittal along with the associated
emission reductions.
3. Commitments, schedules of key
milestones, and. where appropriate,
evidence of legal authority for
implementation, operation, and
enforcement of adopted reasonably
available transportation measures.
Costs and fimriing sources for planning,
implementing, operating, and enforcing
adopted measures must be determined
/for all measures. Tasks and
responsibilities of state and local
agencies and elected officials in carrying
out required programming,
implementation, operation, and
enforcement activities associated with
adopted transportation measures must
be identified. The 1982 submittal must
also include documentation that state
and local governments are continuing to
meet the schedules and commitments for
the transportation measures included in
the 1979 SIP.
4. Comprehensive public
transportation measures to meet basic
•ansportation needs. The measures
juist be accompanied by an
identification and commitment to use. to
the extent necessary, federal state, and
local funds to implement the necessary
improvements. Commitments and
schedules for the implementation of
these measures must also be submitted.
5. A description of public participation
and elected official consultation
activities during development of the
transportation measures.
3. A monitoring plan for periodically
assessing success or failure of
transportation measures or packages of
measures hi meeting emission reduction
projections. The-plan should contain
methods for determining the reasons for
success or failure.
7. Administrative and technical
procedures and agency responsibilities
for ensuring, in response to section
176(c) of the Clean Air Act that
transportation plans, programs, and
projects approved by a metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) are in
conformance with the SIP.
8. A two-part contingency provision,
the first part is applicable to only those
areas with populations of 200,000 or
more. These areas must submit as part
of the SIP a list of planned
transportation measures and projects
that may adversely affect air quality and
that will be delayed, while the SIP is
being revised, if expected emission
reductions or air quality improvements
do not occur. The second part which
must be submitted by all areas
preparing 1982 SIP revisions, consists of
a description of the process that will be
used to determine and implement
additional transportation measures
beneficial to air quality that will
compensate for the unanticipated
shortfalls in emission reductions. The
contingency provision must be initiated
when the EPA Administrator determines
that a SIP is inadequate to attain
NAAQSs and that additional emission
reductions are needed.
The Administrator's February 24,1978
memorandum, "Criteria for Approval of
1979 SIP Revisions," and the October
1978 SIP Transportation Checklist
identified the elements necessary for the
transportation portion of the 1979 SIP.
The provisions listed above supplement
the elements described in the earlier
guidance.
The guidance for 1979 placed primary
emphasis on the establishments of a
continuing air quality-transportation
planning process. This continuing
planning process must be used in
developing the transportation portion of
the 1982 SIP revision. The process is
described in the June 1978 EPA-
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Transportation-Air 0_aality Planning
Guidelines and the May 1,1980 EPA-
DOT Expanded Guidelines for Public -
Participation. Where the process for an
area has changed from that described in
the 1979 submittal. an updated
description, including key planning,
programming, and funding decision-
points, should be submitted in 1982.
Solutions to carbon monoxide
problems can be found through
metropolitan-wide planning, as well as
through analyses, of relatively small
("hotspot") problem areas. Evidence of
specific carbon monoxide problem areas
is derived from modeling and monitoring
information. Although the geographic
area that is nonattainment for carbon
monoxide may be small, the measures
necessary to meet standards may have
to be applied over a larger area. It is
essential to guard against selecting
measures that will solve the carbon
monoxide problem in a small geographic
area, but that will worsen the ozone-
problem or simply transfer the carbon
monoxide problem to another area.
E. Reasonable Further Progress
The July 1982 submittal must
demonstrate that reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the ozone
and carbon monoxide standards will
continue to be made and reported
throughout the period of nonattainment
The annual emission reductions must at
least equal the emission reductions that
would be achieved through a linear
attainment program. As described in the
criteria for approval of the 1979 SIP
submittal, this program is represented
graphically by a straight line drawn
from the emissions inventory for the
base year of the 1979 submittal to the
allowable emissions on the attainment
date. Compliance with the reasonable
further progress requirement does not
authorize delays in implementation or
adoption of any measures. All controls
must be implemented as expeditiously
as practicable.
The demonstration of reasonable
further progress must indicate the total
amount of the annual reduction in
emissions and must distinguish between
those reductions projected to result from
mobile source and stationary source
measures. The projected reductions tobe achieved from these source
categories must be consistent with the
emission reduction largest established
through the consultation process
involving state and local officials.
The criteria for approval of the 1979
submittal recognized that there would
be a lag in the early years hi achieving
reasonable further progress because
most measures would not achieve
immediate reductions. By 1982, however,
a significant number of the stationary
source controls and transportation
measures included hi the 1979 submittal
will be implemented, as will the vehicle
7188 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 14 / Thursday. January 22. 1981 / Rulea and Regulations
I
I
emission I/M program. Emission
reductions will also continue to result
from the control systems required by the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
for new vehicles. Accordingly, each plan
must demonstrate for each year until
attainment is achieved that the annual
net emissions fall on or below the point
representing that year on the straight
line. No lag period will be allowed in
1982 and later years.
The criteria for approving the 1979 SIP
aubmittals included a requirement for
annual reporting of reasonable further
progress. The information demonstrating
reasonable further progress shall be
submitted along with the source
emissions and annual state action report
required by July 1 of .each year (40 CFR
51.321-51.328).
F. Additional Control Measures
Required for Attainment
, If the minimum control measures
described in subsections 3-D are not
adequate to demonstrate attainment by
1987, the state must identify, evaluate,
and adopt additional measures which
can be implemented as quickly as
possible, but no later than 1987.
Examples of such measures include the
following:
(1) Requiring control of all major
stationary sources to levels more
stringent than those generally regarded
as RACT,
(2) Extending controls.to stationary
sources and scource categories other
than those subject to the in'"iTn«in
control measures described in
subsection B,
(3) Implementing a broader range of
transportation controls (e.g., extending
the geographic coverage of some
measures or providing more intensive
implementation], and
(4) Increasing the coverage and
stringency of the vehicle emission I/M
program.
If implementation of all measures
which can be implemented by 1987 will
still not demonstrate attainment by 1987,
the state should then analyze the
transportation and other measures
possible in a longer time frame that,
together with the measures already
evaluated, will result in attainment as
quickly as possible after 1987. The
specific date for attainment shall be
included in the SIP. State and local
governments must commit to
implementation of such measures.
Given the additional time and
potential resources available to areas
with a post-1987 attainment date, more
extensive evidence will be required to
demonstrate that any of the measures
identified in section 108(f] of the Clean
Air Act is not reasonably available.
Many transportation measures which
cannot be implemented by 1987 can,
because of the additional time and
resources available, be implemented by
a post-1987 attainment date. The 108(f)
measures ultimately selected should,
both individually and collectively, be at
least as ambitious as applications of
these measures in other comparable
areas. EPA, in consultation with the
DOT, will act as a clearinghouse in
identifying, ambitious performance
levels for specific-measures.
The 1982 SIP revision to achieve a
post-1987 emission reduction target must
include a convincing demonstration that
the target cannot be achieved by 1987
and that me post-1987 date is the most
expeditious date possible. The
demonstration must identify the
minimum times needed for planning,
programming, and implementation of
adopted transportation and stationary
source control measures and must
demonstrate that all possible measures
will be implemented prior to 1987. In
addition, the demonstration must show
that projected resources from available
sources (federal state, and local) are
insufficient for faster implementation of
the measures.
EPA will use the technical evaluation
prepared by a state to assess whether
areas are making all efforts possible to
attain the ozone and carbon monoxide
standards by 1987. If an area is unable
to attain the ozone and carbon
monoxide NAAQSs by 1987, then the
"most expeditious date beyond 1987"
must be agreed to by state and local
agencies. The transportation and
stationary source control measures
necessary for demonstrating attainment
by the most expeditious date must be
adopted as part of the 1982 SIP
submitted to EPA.
EPA believes that an approach which
requires a state to demonstrate
attainment by a certain date using
measures it is committed to implement
is more in keeping with the spirit of the
Clean Air Act than an approach which
would accept "paper" demonstrations of
attainment by 1987 which relied on
measures which would be virtually
impossible to implement EPA will not
approve a plan which relies on such
unimplementable measures to
demonstrate attainment when it is clear
that the state is not committed to
implement and enforce those aspects of
the plan.
EPA will review plans with post-1987
attainment dates in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. If
EPA concludes that the current
provisions of the Act do not allow
approval of a SIP that provides for
expeditious attainment of standards
I
I
I
I
after 1987, EPA intends to seek
legislative changes that will allow a •
an approval. The nature of any •
legislative change that the Agency may
request will be based on a careful
evaluation of the status of state efforts
to develop plans which attain the
standards on or before 1987. One option
for legislative change that EPA will
consider recommending would provide
area-specific schedules and control
requirements for each of the areas that
cannot demonstrate attainment by 1987.
G. Conformity of Federal Actions
Section 178(c) of the dean Air Act
requires all federal projects, licenses,
permits, financial assistance and other
activities to conform to SIPs. Assurance
of conformity is an affirmative
responsibility of the head of each
federal agency. In addition, section
316(b) requires that the direct and M
indirect emissions associated with any •
wastewater treatment facility funded •
under the Clean Water Act be
accommodated hi the SIP. In preparing
the 1982 SIP revision, states and local
governments should identify, to the
extent possible, the direct and indirect
emissions associated with major federal
actions, including wastewater treatmen*
facility grants, that will take place
during the period covered by the SIP.
Explicit identification of emissions will
enable state and local governments to
more quickly and easily evaluate
subsequent federal conformity
determinations. To assist in determining
conformity, the population projections
on which the 1982 SIP revision is based
should be capable of being
disaggregated at the time of project
analysis so that the areas affected by
individual federal actions not explicitly
accounted for in the SIP can be
identified.
II. SIP Development Process
The Clean Air Act as amended in
1977, and subsequent regulations,
policies and guidance from EPA have
defined specific procedural
requirements for developing SIP
revisions for nonattainment areas.
Appendix B includes a list of selected
guidance documents' that should be used _
in the preparation of the 1982 SIP. EPA •
regional offices will work with states •
and affected local governments during
the preparation of the SIP to .help ensure
that procedural requirements are •
satisfied and that interim products and • I
activities are completed on a schedule *
that will enable the July 1,1982
submittal deadline to be met.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 14 / Thursday, January 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 7189
A. r-isultation Among State and Local
Ol Is
Section 121 of the Clean Air Act
requires each state to provide a process
Cor consultation with local governments,
organizations of local elected officials,
and federal land managers during
certain actions under the Act including
preparation of SIP revisions for
nonattainment areas. Section 174 of the
Act requires a joint determination by
state and local officials of the roles that
various governmental agencies will take
in the SIP development implementation,
and enforcement process. Section 174
also requires the governor of each state
to designate the agency or agencies
responsible for SIP development The
designation made by the-govemor for
the 1979 SIP submittal remains in effect
unless the governor designates a new
agency. The joint determination of
responsibilities and any revised agency
designations should be completed early
in the process and must be submitted as
a part of the 1982 SIP revision. Final
regulations on section 174 and 121 (40
CFR Part SL (Subpart M) were
published on June 18,1979 (44 PR 35178).
B. Establishment of Emission Reduction
Targets
""he control strategy for the 1982 SIP
i . reflect agreement among affected
state and local officials on the emission
reductions needed to attain NAAQSs. It
is particularly important that the
emission reduction targets established
for stationary and mobile sources be
determined through a process of
negotiation among state and local
officials of affected jurisdictions. In
most cases, the initial emission
reduction targets will be established
soon after the technical evaluation of
reasonably available stationary and
mobile source control measures. Targets
may have to be revised as additional
information becomes available during
SIP development Revised targets should
also be determined through consultation
among state and local officials.
C Analysis of Alternatives and Their
Effects
In order for decision-makers and the
public to have adequate information
during development of SIPs requiring
measures beyond the minimum •
described in subsections LB.-LD,
alternative control strategies should be
developed and analyzed. For example,
where a vehicle I/M program and RACT
applied to all major stationary sources
°rill not be sufficient in combination
. ith reasonably available
transportation measures, to attain
standards, a range of more stringent
stationary and mobile source controls
should be evaluated to determine die
best combination to achieve the
required emission reductions. Thia
evaluation should be used in
determining the emission reduction
targets described in die previous
subsection. Examples of these more
stringent controls are listed in.
subsection LF.
The Clean Air Act requires that SIP
submittals include an analysis of air
quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy, and social effects of the SIP and
of the alternative measures considered
during SIP development EPA believes
that in assessing the effects of
alternative control measures, two
national concerns should receive special
emphasis. These concerns are (1)
conservation of petroleum and natural
gas, and (2) protection of the economies
of Hat-lining urban areas. Additional
emphasis on the effects of SIPs on
energy conservation and economies of
distressed urban areas will implement
the intent of Executive Order 12185,
Conservation of Petroleum and Natural
Gas (45 FR 8537, February 7,1980). and
die National Urban Policy.
in. Air Quality and Emission Data
Bases
The requirements for the 1979 SIP
submittal included use of the .best data
available at the time of SIP
development Although states generally
complied with this provision, in many
cases the available data base had many
shortcomings. All states will have had
adequate time by 1982 to have an
"updated data base.
States will need to have the data
necessary for SIP development
significantly before die July 1.1982
submittal date. To ensure that diis effort
receives appropriate priority and
attention, EPA expects states to
complete data collection, analyses, and
documentation by December 31.1981.
This requirement in no way relieves a
state from any prior commitments to
have such data available at an earlier
date.
Emission inventories should, where
possible, be prepared for a 1980 base
year and projected to a date that will, at
a mjniinnnfl, include Uie anticipated year
of attainment Population projections
and other forecasts used for determining
growth rates and areawide emission
estimates must be consistent with
population projections developed in
accordance with the EPA's cost-
effectiveness guidelines for wastewater
treatment facilities (40 CFR Part 35,
Supart E, Appendix A).
The most recent three years of air
quality data from the state and local air
monitoring system network must be
reduced, validated, and summarized in
the plan submittal Generally, this will
include all data collected through the
third quarter of 1981. All data from
special studies implemented to support
the modeling effort must also be
compiled, reduced, and documented. If a
state cannot reduce, evaluate, and
validate data through the third quarter
of 1981 in sufficient time to develop the
SIP revision and still meet
intergovernmental consultation, public
participation, and other requirements,
the state shall present the data in the
SIP submittal and describe haw the data
may effect the plan.
A. Data for Ozone SIP Revisions
EPA previously described the
minimum'data that the Agency
anticipated would^ be necessary to
prepare an ozone modeling effort for
four levels of analyses (44 FR 65867,
November 14,1979). It now appears,
however, that many of the areas
requiring the more sophisticated levels
of modeling will not be able to complete
the more extensive data base collection
efforts required for these models in Hnu?
to support the 1982 SIP submittal
Accordingly, every urban area must
complete a data base sufficient to •
support at least a Level HI'(city-specific
EKMA) modeling analysis. The elements
of this data base are summarized in
Appendix D.
EPA anticipates that states with
especially severe ozone problems will
need to apply a photochemical
dispersion model or an equivalent
technique in subsequent modeling
analyses after 1982. Data collection
efforts should be structured to provide
for Oils contingency.
In order to ensure that all die data
bases will be compatible and that there
is a consistent level of documentation
and quality assurance, state submittals
of environmental data must be
consistent in format and content with
the EPA guideline document Emission
Inventory Requirements for 1982 Ozone
SIPs,
B. Data for Carbon Monoxide SIP
revisions
The emission inventory for carbon
monoxide must be of sufficient accuracy
and detaiLto provide the necessary
input to models, and to determine the
effectiveness of proposed control
measures. The inventory should
normally represent a typical weekday
during the worst carbon monoxide
season and should cover the entire
urban area. More detailed inventories
for smaller hotspot areas may be needed
for analyzing specifically identified
7190 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 14 / Thursday, January 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
I
problems. In developing carbon
monoxide emission inventories states
may, if they desire, limit the
identification of stationary sources to
those with potential emissions of 1000
tons per year. The final acceptability of
the inventory developed will- be
dependent on the modeling approach
selected and will be judged on a case-
by-case basis.
IV. Modeling
States will need to apply the best
tools available in their 1982 SIP
submittal The air quality models that
EPA considers acceptable are identified
below.
A. Ozone Models
Photochemical dispersion models
have the greatest potential for
evaluating the effectiveness of ozone
control strategies. This potential arises
primarily from the ability to relate
emissions directly to ambient ozone
concentrations, taking into account
atmospheric chemistry and dispersion.
In most cases, however, data
requirements associated with applying
these models by 1982 are prohibitive. Of
the generally available, less data
intensive models, only the various
applications of EKMA consider local
meteorological influences and
atmospheric chemistry in evaluating
control requirements. The city-specific
EKMA approach is the most promising
for 1962 and EPA recommends its use. If
the agency preparing the SIP already
has the capability to apply a more
sophisticated level of modeling and •
wants to do so, EPA encourages such
applications. The use of a modeling
approach other than city-specific EKMA
must be approved by EPA prior to a
commitment by the state to its use. EPA
is currently finalizing the guideline on
the use of city-specific EKMA; the
guideline should be available by March
1981.
The inability of other simpler models
to adequately consider chemical kinetics
and meteorological parameters reduces
their ability to represent local situations.
Accordingly, EPA will not consider
plans based on linear or proportional
rollback to provide an adequate
demonstration of attainment EPA is
publishing a proposal hi today's Federal
Register to modify 40 CFR 51.14 by .
deleting the provision allowing the use
of rollback as an acceptable modeling
technique. A state that used rollback in
the SIP revision submittal in 1979 to
demonstrate attainment by 1982 will not
be required to revise the analysis on
which its SIP is based, unless EPA
determines the SIP to be deficient for
attaining the ozone NAAQS. Upon such
a determination, the state will be
required to meet the provisions of this
policy including adoption of the
minimum control measures, as well as
the modeling requirements.
E Carbon Monoxide Models
States and urban areas must estimate
the impact of local and regional control
strategies on carbon monoxide
nonattainment areas and demonstrate
attainment of the carbon monoxide
standard. The generally available
carbon monoxide models are described
in Guideline on Air Quality Models,
April 1978, EPA 450/2-78-027. These
guidelines, and any subsequent updates,
should be followed hi preparing a
carbon monoxide attainment analysis.
The acceptability of models other than
those listed in the guideline will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Other models proposed for use must be
adequately documented and validated.
Dated: January 13,1981.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
Appendix A—Extension Areas
Table 1.—Areas Requesting an Extension
Beyond 1982 for Attaining the Ozone Standard
EPA su»
Nav York Oty.
OWna ol Cc*in*ta— WaiNnglon.
-M«fy(and______
Pwmylvi . Allantown,
Htifladalp'
PHtataurgh,
Ctncmnall, LouMHa.
NainvWa.
CMcaao, St Lou*
CKcaao. louivJa.
Dam*.
dndnmtf, Ctew0iiWid>
Mitmukaa.
StUnrt.
Dannr.
SOt Uka CRy.
FrMDOt SMWTMnlO^
SanDtooASan
Franciaco Bay *nt
Baatt. South Coaat
Portland.
PofHwu, 5*Mdte.
1 San JOMAI VUtoy Nontttainniant Area.1 South Cantnt Coatt NonatttinmeM An*.
Tabto 8.—Areas Requesting an Extension,
yond 1982 (or Attaining the Carbon * '
ide Standard
EPA e^. .1
Bridoaport, HarttafB*
nonon, SprinQAald*
Manonarur,
Aflanticaty.
Burtngton, Carndan,
QxatMttX FraanofcJ.
Hackanaaok.JffWM
wfih ^Hnon. •Nam*. Pstaraon.
Parma Grow. ParMal
Amboy, SonwmMa,
TORtV nMMft
Tranton.New York Now York CUf.
, OMfct ol Colun*ia— WasNngnn.
Maryland atttknora.
' Mchkj*n_
CMcaga-
Onormall. OavelandL
Detro*.
Mlfwauka*.
Utah..::,
. Arizona.—
California.
SlLoutm.
Oanvar, Cokxado
Sprnoi.Fort
Collna. Graoly.Sam Late Cay.
I
I
I
Frasno. UtkaTanoa,
Sactamamo. San
Oago, San
Franoaeo Bay A'
B»ain, SouO) Co
Basn.
U» Vega*.
cuQana, Madford*
Portland.
Smtde, Tacoma.
aolaa.
Appendix B—Selected EPA Guidance for SIP
Development
The following list identifies selected EPA
guidance for SIP development A compilation
of major EPA guidance for SIP development
is included in the "Air Programs Policy and
Guidance Notebook," which is distributed to
state and local agencies. Copies of the
notebook are available for copying at the
EPA Public Information Reference Unit in
Washington, O.C. and at each EPA regional
office.
1. Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions, memorandum from Douglas M.
Costle, Administrator of EPA to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X. February 24,
1978 (43 FR 21673).
2. Memorandum of Understanding
Between DOT and EPA Regarding the
Integration of Transportation and Air Quality
Planning, June 1978.
3. EPA-OOT Transportation-Air Quality
Planning Guidelines, June 1978.
4. Inspection/Maintenance Policy,
memorandum from David G. Hawkins to
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X July
17,1978.
5. Determination of Emission Reduction
Responsibilities, memorandum from David G.
Hawkins to Regional Administrators, August
1,1978.
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 14 / Thursday, fannary 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 7191
8. P-*ieral Preamble for Proposed
Rule jig, April 4, 1979 (44 FR 20372). The
Genetu Preamble was amended on the
following dates: April 30, 1979 (44 FR 25243);
July 2. 1979 (44 FR 38583); August 28, 1979 (44
FR 50371); September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53161);
and November 23. 1979 (44 FR 67182).
7. 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M—
Intergovernmental Consultation. June 18. 1979
(44 FR 35178)
8. EPA-OOT Expanded Public
Participation Guidelines. May 1. 1980 (45 FR
42032).
9. DOT-EPA Procedures for Conformance
of Transportation Plans, Programs and
Projects with Clean Air Act State
Implementation Plans. June 12, 1980.
10. Policy and Procedures to Implement
Section 316 of the Clean Air Act, as
Amended, memorandum from Douglas M.
Costle to Regional Administrators. Regions
I-X. ]nly 23, 1980. (45 FR 53382).
Appendix C— Description of Terms Used hi
the Transportation-Air Quality SIP
Development Process
Adopted Measures
A transportation measure, program, or
policy that state and local planning and
implementing agencies and governments
have agreed to include in the official SIP
submission.
Planning Process
The process defined In the September 17,
1975 Federal Highway Administration
(F ''A)-Urban Mass Transportation
A aistration (UMTA) regulations, the June
1978 EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality
Planning Guidelines, and the May 1, 1980
EPA-DOT Expanded Public Participation
Guidelines. Through this process
transportation measures are introduced,
evaluated, placed in the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) or long range
element of the urban transportation plan, and
advanced to the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and the annual element of the
TO.
Programming Process
The process by which transportation
measures are advanced from the annual
element of the TIP to the capital programs
and budgets of implementing agencies and
then to funding by state and local
governments, FHWA (through the statewide
105 program), or UMTA (through the section 3
and 5 programs).
Expeditious Attainment Date
The attainment date approved in the 1979
SIP submission. This date may be modified if
the analysis of alternatives done as part of
the development of the 1982 SIP submittal
shows that an earlier date is possible through
expeditious implementation of all reasonably
available control measures or that a later
date is necessary because the approved
attainment date cannot be achieved.
Reasonably Available Transportation
'
. A measure that has been determined to be
beneficial to air quality and which will not
result in substantial and long-term adverse
Impacts, Thes* measures need to be adopted
by the affected state and local official*
participating in the planning and
programming processes. The process of
determining reasonably available
transportation measures is analytical,
participatory, and negotiatory, and Involves
the public, as well as local, state, and federal
agendas and officials* Tho analytic pazt of
the process inchuten determinations of
technical a*iH fl*r^NKlmiff feasibility. ^
Expeditious Implementation of Raatooabfy
Available Transportation Measures
Implementation by the earliest possible
date nfmyifJBriyifij!
1. The minimum time required to advance
the measure through planning and
programming processes.
2. The "iinitmim tim0 required to obtain
implementation commitments.
3. The minimum ^"^> required to construct
(if seeded] and begin operation of the
measures.
Implementation Commitments
Certification (may be by reference to
budgets or other legally adopted documents)
by federal state, and local agencies with the
authority to implement SIP measures that (1)
funds to implement the measure are obligated
and (2) all necessary approvals have been
obtained. Identification by the implementing
agency of the scheduled dates for start of
construction (if appropriate) and for start of
operation.
If .a project has not reached the stage of
receiving budget approval, then tha
implementation commitment should be in the
form of a schedule that lists the projected
dates for completing the major steps required
to advance the measure through the
remaining planning and programming
processes. The schedule should also contain
an identification of the responsible agencies
that must take significant actions to
implement the measure.
Actions by many agencies and elected
officials an usually required before a
transportation project is implemented. The
SIP should list the important actions, the
agencies or officials required to take each
action, and a schedule that will lead to
implementation.
The lead planning agency is usually
charged with obtaining the various
commitments. This requires:
1. Identifying all remaining actions and the
agency or official responsible for each action.
2. Consulting with each agency or official
to establish the date by when the action will
be taken.
The product of these efforts should be
submitted in the SIP in a form similar to the
following example.
Example
The MPO for an urban area has adopted
for inclusion in the SIP a busway that will
connect a suburban residential area with the
central business district Operation of the
busway will require the purchase of 25 new
buses. Corridor location studies have been
completed and final design is underway. The
provision in the 1982 SIP submittal should
include an approximate schedule similar to
that outlined below for completion of the
project
1. MPO places project-in annual element of
the SIP; each funding agency prepares budget
requests for necessary funds—Complete.
2. Transit operating agency adopts project
as part of capital program—Complete.
3. Transit operating agency-or appropriate
project sponsor solicits approval of local
government share of project costs from the
city and county councils—Fall 1982.
4. Transit operating agency submits project
application to state department of
transportation—Winter 1982.
5. State department of transportation
requests state legislature to appropriate stats
share of matching funds—Spring 1983.
6. Transit operating agency submits a grant
application to UMTA (submittal occurs if tha
funding match has been approved; if the
project is delayed at this point, contingency
provisions will be adopted}—Summer 1983;
(Checkpoint project receives approval
from UMTA}—Spring 1984.
7. Transit operating agency places order for
new buses—Spring 1984.
8. State department of transportation starts
construction contract for busway—Winter
1985.
9. Agreement with state and local
enforcement authorities is signed—Spring
1988.
(Checkpoint Buses delivered and
construction completed}—Summer 1986.
10. Transit operating agency initiates
operation—Summer 1988.
Justification for not Adopting a Section 108(f)
Measure
Justification should include:
1. Documentation of air quality, health,
welfare, economic, energy, social and
mobility effects of the measure, as
appropriate for the type of measure and the
scale of application.
2. Documentation that the measure was
considered in a process that involved the
public and state and local officials.
3. Determination that implementation of the
measure results in substantial and long-term
adverse impacts.
4. Demonstration that the air quality
standards can be expeditiously attained
without the measure.
Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan to be contained in the
1982 SIP should be designed for periodically
assessing the extent to which transportation
measures, either individually or packaged,
are resulting in projected emission reductions
and the reasons for any shortfalls in
reductions. The monitoring plan need not
cover air quality monitoring. The plan should
contain methods for determining the reasons
for success or failure of the emission
reduction achievements of the transportation
measures contained in the 1982 SIP. The
monitoring plan should depend upon existing
data, regularly collected data, surrogate
emission indicators (such as the number of
auto trips, trip speeds, etc.] and
approximation techniques. Collection of new
data should be minimized.
7192 Federal Register:/ Vol. 46..No. 14 / Thursday, January 22. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
Contingency Plan
The contingency provision is needed in the
event that EPA calls for a SIP revision based
on its determination that the reasonable
further progress schedule is not being met
The contingency provision contains two
parts. The first part is only for areas over
200,000 population. For these areas, the
contingency provision should include a
locally developed list of projects which
implementing agencies have agreed can be
delayed during an interim period while the
SIP is being revised. The second part of the
contingency provision is a description of a
process for determining additional
transportation measures beneficial to air
quality that can be implemented to
compensate for unanticipated shortfalls in
emission reductions or can be accelerated to
replace adopted measures that are not
proceeding on schedule. This second part of
the contingency provision should be included
in every 1982 SIP submittaL
Appendix D—Summary of Minimum Level in
Data Requirement* for 1982 Ozone Modeling
Submittals
A. Emission Data Requirements
1. Spatial Resolution. County-wide
emission inventories for VOCs and nitrogen
oxides (NOJ are needed for a Level in
analysis.
2. Temporal Resolution. Typical summer
weekday emission estimates are required as
part of the Level in data submittaL
Preparation of these estimates is described in
the guideline. Emission Inventory
Requirements for the 1982 Ozone SEPs.
3. VOC Categories, Classification into
reactive species of VOCs is not required for a
Level m analysis.
4. Source Category Delineation. It is
necessary to separate the emissions
estimates according to major source
categories such as is described in the
guideline. Emission Inventory Requirements
for the 1982 Ozone SIPs. This disaggregatioa
of estimates is useful for making projections
of future aggregated emissions.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors (3 sites). Ozone
monitors should be located at (a) one upwind
site, (b) one downwind site at the edge of the
urbanized area, and (c) one downwind site
approximately 15-W kilometers from the
urbanized area.
2. THC/Ctf. MJ, Monitors (1 site required.
2 sites desirable). Guidance presented in
EPA-ISO/4-80-011. Guidance for the
Collection of Ambient NMOC Data for Use in
1982 Ozone SIP Development, and Network
Design and Siting Criteria for the NMOC and
ffOi Monitors, should be followed.
3. Upwind Precursor Data, Optional air
quality data for Level Iff are measurements of
ambient NO, and THC/CHi at one site
upwind of an urbanized area. These data are
generally unnecessary and are needed only
for unusual cases when it is desirable to take
explicit account of transported precursors in
the analysis. Most studies have indicated that
transported ozone is of greater significance
than transported precursors in contributing to
urban problems. Because of the lack of
precision associated with nonmethane
hydrocarbon (NMHQ estimates from
continuous THC/CH< monitors at low
concentrations, use of these instruments at
upwind sites is not recommended. Jt is
preferable to collect a limited number of grab
samples, analyze these cnromatographically,
and sum species to estimate upwind NMHC.
Guidance presented in EPA-450/4-80-008,
Guidance for the Collection and Use of
Ambient Hydrocarbon Species Data in the
Development of Ozone Control Strategies,
should be followed. Continuous measurement
of NO/NO, is appropriate.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
V Upper Air and Surface Temperature
Data, Estimates of the morning (8:00 a.m.)
and maximum afternoon mixing heights are
required. Preferably, estimates should be
obtained using the nearest National Weather
Service radiosonde data (if available) in
conjunction with hourly urban surface
temperature data. If radiosonde data are not
available, morning and afternoon mixing
heights can be estimated using AP-101,
"Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential
for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the
Contiguous United States."
2. Surface Wind Data. Surface wind data at
two sites (one site located in an area of high
precursor emissions and another outside the
urban core) are required. The wind data are
used to help ensure that the recorded design
value is measured downwind of the city.
Appendix E—Regional Office Locations of
Comments and Responses on the Proposed
1982 SIP Policy
The locations and times for review of the
comments on the proposed 1982 SIP policy
and EPA responses may be determined by
contacting the following:
Hariey P. Laing, Chief, Air Programs Branch;
EPA—Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203,617-223-6883
Bill Baker, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
EPA—Region H, 28 Federal Plaza, New
York. NY 10007,212-284-2517
Raymond Cunningham, Chief; Air Programs
Branch, EPA—Region QL Curtis Building,
6th & Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA
19108,215-597-8175
Winston Smith, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
EPA—Region IV. 345 Courtland Street
Ni, Atlanta, GA 30308, 404-681-3043
Steve Rothblatt, Chief. Air Programs Branch,
EPA—Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604, 312-353-6030
Jack Divita, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
EPA—Region VT, First International
Building, 1201 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75270,
214-787-2742
Art Spratlin, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
EPA—Region VH, 324 East Eleventh Street.
Kansas City, MO 84108, 818-374-3791
Robert DeSpain. Chief. Air Programs Branch.
EPA—Region VHl 1880 Lincoln Street
Denver. CO 80295, 303-837-3471
David Howekamp, Chief, Air Programs
Branch, EPA—Region DC. 215 Fremont
Street San Francisco, CA 94105,415-556-
4708
Richard ThieL Chief, Air Programs Branch,
EPA—Region X1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,
WA98101, 208-442-1230
[FR Doc. M-2221 Filed l-a-81; 145 «m|
wujao.cooeww.n-n
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Federal Register / Vol. 4&. No. 14 / Thursday. January 22.1981 / Proposed Rules 7193
ENVPONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGE '
40CFRPart51
[AD FRL-1722-ta, Docket No. A-80-56]
State Implementation Plans; Approved
Ozone Modeling Techniques
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: In the policy on 1982 Ozone
State Implementation Plan (SIP}
revisions for areas needing an
attainment date extension published
elsewhere in the Federal Register today,
• EPA stated that it would not consider
linear or proportional rollback modeling
as acceptable techniques to demonstrate
attainment for the 1982 plans.
Today EPA is proposing to modify 40
CFR 51.14 to delete rollback as an
acceptable ozone modeling
methodology.
DATES: Comments must be received by
the Central Docket Section by March 23,
1981. All comments received by that
date will be considered before final
action is taken.
Ar 1SSES: Written comments must be
su. jtted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket No. A-80-58. The
docket may be inspected at Gallery 1,
West Tower, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. on weekdays and a reasonable
fee may be charged for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Johnnie L Pearson, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (MS-
IS), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone: (919-541-5437).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 required the States to revise their
SIPs for all areas that had not attained
the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Each State was to
submit a SIP revision by January 1.1979
providing for attainment of the NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the end of 1982 (or the end of
1987 for areas with particularly difficult
"-one or carbon monoxide problems). A
.te that requires an extension of the
attainment date beyond 1982 for ozone
or carbon monoxide areas is required to
submit a further SIP revision of these
areas by July 1,1982.
On February 8,1979, EPA revised the
national ambient air quality standard
for ozone (44 FR 8202). At that time EPA
also revised the requirements set forth
in 40 CFR 51.14 for the preparation,
adoption, and aubmittal of SIPs related
to ozone (44 FR 8234). Specifically,
3 51.14(c)(7) was revised to require that
one of the following modeling
techniques be used to determine the
amount of hydrocarbon control
necessary to demonstrate attainment of
the ozone standard:
L Photochemical dispersion models.
2. Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
(EKMA).
3. Empirical and statistical models.
4. Proportional rollback.
For purposes of the 1979 SIP revisions,
States generally used only the standard
EKMA and proportional rollback
techniques to evaluate ozone control
strategies and make ozone attainment
demonstrations. The States used these
techniques rather than the more rigorous
photochemical dispersion models
because the detailed data required for
the more rigorous techniques were
generally not available. EPA, therefore,
approved ozone attainment
demonstrations based on proportional
rollback and EKMA techniques for the
1979 SIPs. On November 14,1979,
however, EPA published guidance on
the collection of the detailed data base
necessary for the more sophisticated
techniques and indicated that the
agency would expect these techniques
to be used in future SIP revisions (44 FR
65667, November 14.1979).
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register
EPA is issuing the policy for approval of
the 1982 ozone and carbon monoxide
SIP revisions for those areas needing an
attainment date extension beyond 1982.
This policy recognizes that even though
photochemical dispersion models have
the greatest potential for accurately
evaluating the effectiveness of ozone
control strategies, the extensive data
requirements for these models preclude
their use for the 1982 SIP revisions. The
policy also recognizes that the States
should have the data base necessary for
application of the city-specific EKMA
model. EKMA, unlike proportional
rollback techniques, takes into
consideration local meteorological
influences and atmospheric chemistry in
evaluating control requirements. For this
reason, city-specific EKMA is a more
accurate method of evaluating ozone
control strategies. Therefore, in the 1982
SIP policy, EPA recommends that States
use city-specific EKMA for the 1982 '
ozone SIPs. EPA's policy also states that
1982 plans based on proportional
rollback would not be considered to
provide an adequate demonstration of ...
attainment
B. Proposed Rule
EPA is proposing to delete
proportional rollback from from the list
of approved modeling techniques for
ozone SIP attainment demonstrations.
This action is consistent with the policy
on 1982 ozone SIPs and is based on die
fact that the States now have or can
develop the data bases necessary for the
more rigorous techniques and use of
these techniques, provide more accurate
evaluations of ozone control strategies
and more realistic attainment
demonstrations.
This deletion will be prospective in
nature. In other words, after
promulgation of this change to 40 CFR'
51.14, EPA will not approve any ozone
SIP revision based on proportional
rollback modeling techniques, but States
with approved SIPs based on rollback
will not be required to revise their SEPs.
However, if the ozone standard is not
attained by means of present SIP
requirements by 1982 or if for any other
reason a SIP revision if necessary, the
revision cannot be based on a rollback
technique. Since the States have notice
of this action and should have the data
bases necessary for the more rigorous
techniques, the deletion of the rollback
technique should not unduly burden the
SB? development process.
C Solicitation of Comments
EPA is soliciting comments on all
aspects of today's proposal and in
particular, its impact on SB? revisions
not covered by the policy on SEP
revision for areas which requested
extension of the 1982 attainment date.
D. Classification
EPA has determined that this revision
is "specialized" and therefore, is not
subject to the procedural requirements
of executive order 12044.
E. Economic Impacts
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed
rule will not if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This action imposes no new regulatory
requirements, but only revises the ozone
modeling techniques available to states,
in making attainment demonstrations.
Few, if any, small entities will need to
expend additional resources to meet the
revised requirements. Accordingly, this
action will not cause significant
economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities.
7194 Federal Register / VoL 46, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 1981 / Proposed Rules
F. Authority
This proposed action is issued
pursuant to sections 110, 171-174, 301 of
the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7501-
7504 and 7601.
Dated: January 13, 1981.
Douglas M. Costla,
Administrator. . ~
§51.14 [AnwndMlJ
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR 51.14
as follows: (1) 40 FR Part 51 is amended
by removing § 51.14{c)(7)[iv).
[FR Doe. 81-2222 Flhd l-il-«l: MS «m|
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday; April 14. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 21749
new item (viii) a new subitenv 3.. to read
as follows:
8.76 Bacftracfn methylcne dlsaieytate.
(e) * ' *
(1) * * *
Sacrtracin nwthylena
oisadicyiata in grams-per loo
Combinations n
ytSins p8f ton Indica bora for use Spon.
(») 50..
(«i) 100 to 200_
. AuiMf unictofis, as an lid in tha prevon-
Son at necrotfe enterias cauMd or cor*
-ptieaMd by Closmaum sen or altar or-
Sanwm* suaceotfele to bacdradrt
. 04«S73
fcfwnt: as an aid in *M control
Or ntCfdic sntontis cmsod Of complied!*
dd by Ctostfi&tffft spp^ of otttBf Ofy&fMSffts
stacapt&f to todtnon.
,046573
Effective date. April 14,1981.
(Sec. 512(i% 82 Stat. 347 (2TU.S.C. 360b(i)))
Dated: April 2,1981. '....''
Robert A. Baldwin. ~
Associate Director-for Scientific. Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 81-10531 Filed 4-13-81: &«5 ami
BIUING COOC 4110-03-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ A-9-FRt. 1788-1]
{"Approval and Promulgation of \^
Implementation Plans; San Diego Air\
I Basin Nonattainment Area PlanJ
. .iNCY: Environmental Protection
• Agency. .
ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: On October 4,1979 (44 FR
57109), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) published a notice of
proposed rule-making for the San Diego
Air Basin nonattainment area plan
(NAP) for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone.
(O»), total suspended particulate matter
(TSP), and nitrogen dioxide (NO,).
Today's notice addresses all of the San
Diego NAP except the inspection/
maintenance portion, which will be
addressed in a future Federal Register
notice.
Through revisions submitted to
supplement the NAP, the State has
corrected the TSP and NO» major
deficiencies described in the October 4
notice.
Therefore, today's final action results
in an overall conditional approval for
TSP and NO* These actions remove the
prohibition on construction of major
new or modified TSP and NO* sources.
However, the construction prohibition
continues to apply to major new and
modified ozone and carbon monoxide
sources.
"his notice provides a brief summary
v.. the proposed rulemaking notice.
describes the recent revisions which
supplement the NAP, discusses public
comments, and describes EPA's final
actions on the NAP.
DATES: This action is effective April 14,
1981.
ADDRESS: A copy of today's revisions to
the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) is located at: The Office of the
Federal Register, 1100 L Street NW.,
Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 20408.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region DC, 215 Fremont Street-, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Attn.: Douglas
Grano, (415) S5&-293&
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Clean Air Act. as amended in
1977, requires states to revise their SIPs
for all areas that have not attained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). On July 5,1979, the Executive
Officer of the California Air Resources
Board (ARE), the Governor's official
designee, submitted the San Diego Air
Basin Control Strategy as a revision to
the California SIP. In addition, prior to
July 5.1979, several amendments to the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) Rules and Regulations
were submitted. These revisions, which
comprise the San Diego Air Basin NAP,
are intended to provide for the
attainment of the CO, O, TSP, and NO,
NAAQS in San Diego County.
On October 4,1979 (44 FR 57109), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking on the San Diego Air Basin
NAP. That notice provided a description
of the NAP, summarized the applicable
Clean Air Act requirements into 14
criteria, compared to NAP to those
criteria, and, as described below,
proposed to approve, cpnditionally
approve,, or disapprove portions of the
NAP. The October 4,1979 notice should
be used as a reference in reviewing
today's actions.
EPA proposed to disapprove the
following portions of-the NAP: legally
adopted measures/schedules; permit
program; extension requirements; and
extension requirements for VOC RACT.
EPA proposed to disapprove these
portions because the lack of an I/M
program, an NSR rule, and rules
reflecting RACT for certain VOC
sources constituted major deficiencies
with respect to Part D of the Clean Air
Act "Plan Requirements for
Nonattainment Areas." As discussed in
the October 4,1979 notice, the NAP as a
whole cannot be approved or
conditionally approved with respect to
Part D with these major deficiencies.
Thus, that notice proposed to
disapprove the overall San Diego Air
Basin NAP and continue the
construction prohibition.
EPA also proposed to approve and
incorporate into the SIP the following
portions of the NAP, regardless of the
ultimate approvability of the overall
NAP: emission inventory for
hydrocarbons (HC), CO and NO,;
modeling for CO; reasonable further
progress (RFP); emission growth; and
public hearing. These portions of the
NAP were found to be consistent with
Part D.
Finally, EPA proposed that the
following portions of the NAP could be
conditionally approved if major
deficiencies in the NAP were corrected:
emission inventory for participates;
attainment provision; modeling for Os.
TSP, and NO«; legally adopted
measures/schedules; emission reduction
estimates; annual reporting; permit
program; resources; public and
governmental involvement; extension
requirements; and extension
requirements for VOC RACT. These
portions were found to contain minor
deficiencies with respect to Part D. EPA
also proposed conditions of approval for
these portions.
After the publication of the October 4,
1979 notice, EPA received the necessary
NSR rules as SIP revisions from the
State and numerous public comments,
which are discussed in today's notice. In
addition, the State -has submitted VOC '
21750 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
rules as SIP revisions'which appears to
correct the VOC major deficiency.
Those VOC rules are addressed in the
February 4.1981 proposed rulemaking .
notice. However, the California State
Legislature to this date has failed to
correct the I/M major deficiency. ~
Supplemental Revisions
Subsequent to the publication of the
October 4,1979 notice, the State
submitted revisions which supplement
portions of the NAP. These revisions are
discussed below.
New Source Review (NSR)
The October 4,1979 notice cited the
lack of an adopted, legally enforceable
NSR rule as a major deficiency which
must be corrected before EPA could
approve or conditionally approve the
CO, O* TSP, or NOt plants.1 However,
the State submitted a draft NSR rule and
requested EPA to review this rule. EPA
reviewed the draft NSR rule and
concluded that it contained only minor
deficiencies with respect to Part D
requirements. EPA proposed that the
permit program portion of the. NAP
could be. conditionally approved if the
State submitted an adopted NSR rule
similar and equivalent to the draft rule.
On February 13,1980, the State
submitted the following adopted NSR
rules for the San Diego County APCD:
Rule 20.1 Definitions, Emission
Calculations, Emission Offsets and
Banking, Exemptions, and Other
Requirements
Rule 2O2 Standards for Authority to
Construct—Best Available Air Pollution '"
Control-Technology
Rule 20.3 Standards for Authority to
Construct—Air Quality Analysis
Rule 20.4 Standards for Authority to
Construct—Major Stationary Sources
Rule 20.5 Power Plants
Rule 20.6 Standards for Permit to Operate—
Air Quality Analysis
Rule 20.7 Standards for Authority to
Construct—Significant Deterioration
Section 173 of the Clean Air Act
contains the requirements for approval
of a permit program. EPA established
guidance based on Section 173 in: (1)
EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative
Ruling (January 18,1979 Federal
Register, 44 FR 3274) and (2) EPA's
proposed amendments to regulations for
NSR and the Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling (September 5,1979
Federal Register, 44 FR 51924).
San Diego's NSR rules were reviewed
against the requirements stated in
Section 173 of the Act and the Emission
Offset Interpretative Ruling of January
1 In this notice, the word "plan(s)" means the
overall NAP or portions of the NAP specific to
certain pollulanl(s).
18,1979. They were also compared with
the State's draft NSR rule. EPA has
determined that the submitted rules are
similar to the draft rule in that the
definitions and requirements are ._
substantially the same, and are
equivalent to the draft rule in that" they
are at least as effective in meeting the
requirements of Section 173. In addition,
the submitted rules will be in effect for
only a short time since the State is
required to meet new EPA_requirements
for NSR by May 7.1981, as is discussed
below.
EPA has also determined, however,
that the submitted rules contain some
minor deficiencies with respect to
Section 173, including exemptions for
certain sources inconsistent with EPA's
requirements, and a definition of
"stationary source" less stringent than is.
required. These and other minor
deficiencies are described in EPA's
Evaluation Report Addendum, which is
contained in document file NAP-CA-19
and is available at the EPA Region IX
Office, the ARB, the San Diego County
APCD, the Comprehensive Planning
Organization, and the EPA Library in
Washington D.C
It should be noted that EPA has
published two final rulemaking notices
on the September 5,1979 proposed
amendments to EPA's NSR regulations
and the Emission Offset Interpretative
Ruling. These notices, published on May
13,1980 (45 FR 31307) and August 7,1980
(45 FR.52876). amend EPA's
Interpretative Ruling and set out new
EPA requirements for NSR under
Section 173. The State is required to
comply with the August 7,1980
requirements by May 7,1981. In revising
the San Diego County APCD's NSR
rules, the State/APCD must address (1)
any new requirements in EPA's
amended regulations for NSR (May 13,
1980, 45 FR 31307; and August 7,1980, 45
FR 52676) which the APCD rules do not
currently satisfy and (2) the deficiencies
cited in EPA's Evaluation Report
Addendum which still apply despite
EPA's new NSR requirements.
Stationary Source VOC RACT
Regulations
The October 4.1979 notice cited the
lack of adopted, legally enforceable
rules reflecting RACT for seven VOC
source categories for which EPA had
published a Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) document as a major
deficiency which must be corrected
before EPA could approve or
conditionally approve the O* plan. OnOctober 15 and 25,1979. the State
submitted the following San Diego
County APCD rules for these 7 VOC
source categories:,
October 15,1979
Rule 67.6 Solvent Cleaning Operations
Rule 67.7 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt
October 25,1979 \
Rule 67.3 Coating of Metal Parts Products
Rule 67.4 Can and Coil Coating Operations
Rule 67.5 Paper and Fabric Coating
Operations
EPA will propose action and invite
public comment on the submitted rules
listed above In a separate Federal
Register notice.
The October 4,1979 notice also
proposed to approve or conditionally
approve five rules (Rules 61.0, 61.1. 61.2,
ai.J and 81.7) for VOC sources
addressed by the other four Group I
CTG source categories applicable in the
San Diego Air Basin. However, the State
submitted the following San Diego
County APCD rules on July 25 and
December 15,1980, which revise and
supersede all of the originally proposed
rules except Rule 61.7:
Rule 81.0 Definitions
Rule 61.1 Receiving and Storing Volatile
Organic Compounds at Bulk Plants and
Bulk Terminals
Rule 61.2 Transfer of Volatile Organic
Compounds into Mobile Transport Tanks
Rule 61.3 Transfer of Volatile Organic
Compounds into Stationary Storage
Containers
Rule 61.4 Transfer of Volatile Organic
Compounds into Vehicle Fuel Tanks
Again. EPA will propose action and
invite public comment on these rules ina separate Federal Register notice.
EPA is taking final action in today's
notice (see the EPA ACTIONS section)
on rules which were submitted prior to
and discussed in the October 4,1979
notice and which have not been
superseded, namely Rules 2(t), 61.5, and
61.7.
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
The October 4,1979 notice proposed
as a condition of approval the submittal
of those portions of CEQA that relate to
an analysis of alternatives which
demonstrate that benefits outweigh
environmental costs when granting an
NSR permit to a major emitting facility.
Such an analysis is required by Section
172(b)(ll)(A) of the Clean Air Act, the
lack of which constitutes a minor
deficiency. ~ .
On October 20,1980. the State
submitted the following portions of
CEQA:
Sections 2100; 21001; 21002; 21002.1;
21061; 21063; 21065; 21080.1; 21080.4(a);
21080.5 (a), (b), (c) and (d); 21081; 21082
21100; 21104; 21151; 21153; and 21160.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday. April 14. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 21751
These portions of CEQA require all
"State agencies, boards, and
nmissions" to certify the completion
. an environmental impact report (HER)
on any project "which may have a
significant effect on the environment."
The EIR shall include "a detailed
statement" setting forth, among other
things, "alternatives to the proposed
action." In order to approve a project
under CEQA, the agency must find -
either (1) that changes have been
required in the project "which mitigate
or void the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the
completed environmental impact report"
or (2} that "[SJpecific economic, social,
or other considerations make infeasible
mitigation measures or project .
alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.".
EPA has determined that the
submittal of these portions of CEQA.
corrects the cited minor deficiency.
Further, EPA incorporated these
portions of CEQA into the California SEP
in the recently published notice of final
rulemaking for the South Coasf Air
Basin NAP.
Public Comments
Comments Specific to the San Diego Air
Basin NAP
"luring the public comment period.
\ received several comments. The -
following discussion, structured upon
the 14 criteria for approval identified in
the October 4,1979 notice, describes the
relevant comments and EPA's
responses. Comments concerning
inspection/maintenance will be .
addressed in a future notice.
(1) Emission Inventory
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the.
submittal of a refined emission
inventory for participates, identifying
and quantifying subcategories of the
fugitive dust category. The San Diego
County APCD commented that these
fugitive dust subcategories are
adequately identified and quantified hi
the NAP technical support documents
and that an extension of the submittal
deadline is needed for ARB to formally
submit this data to EPA. Also, the San
Diego County APCD and the
Comprehensive Planning Organization
(CPO) commented that the emission
inventory would be revised to reflect
only the nonattainment area portion of
the County.
Response: EPA will revise the
deadline for State submittal of the
ined particulate emission inventory to
,1981.-
(2) Attainment Provision
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of emission projections for
particulates. NO,, HC, and CO for the
statutory attainment dates. The APCD
commented that these will be provided
to~ ARB for submittal to EPA and
requested an extension of the deadline.
Response: EPA will revise the
deadline for the State's submittal of the
required emission projections to July 13,
1981.
Comment- The October 4,1979 notice
noted that the State should submit* a
commitment to an emission reduction
target CERT] for the transportation
sector in the 1980 annual report. CPO
commented that Work Element 205.02 of
the CPO fiscal year 1980 Overall Work
Program calls for the development of
transportation ERTs for four alternative.
scenarios to be used in developing
alternative strategies for the 1982 SIP
revision..
Response: The use of alternative
targets is acceptable for planning
purposes. However, in order to
demonstrate attainment and to facilitate
necessary planning for other source
sectors, one target must be
acknowledged as a goal for reducing
emissions in the transportation sector.
Therefore, one target for'the
transportation sector should be adopted
by a resolution-andincluded in the 1981
annual report.
Comment: The APCD commented that
ERTs for transportation should take into
account the effectiveness of
technological controls and the need to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.
Response: EPA agrees. Targets should
reflect the reductions in emissions
necessary to demonstrate attainment,
taking into account the air .quality
impacts of anticipated growth and
development, emission reductions
achieved through existing programs
(such as the federal motor vehicle
emission standards program), and local
decisions regarding the responsibilities
of each source sector (i.e.,
transportation, stationary, mobile, and
area sources) to assume appropriate
jjortions of the needed reductions.
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of a commitment and a
schedule to study nontraditional'TSP
control measures and a commitment to
implement those measures found to be
reasonable. ARB commented that in
adopting other NAPs. they established a
statewide policy and commitment to
adopt those controls necessary to
project attainment of the TSP NAAQS
by December 31,1982, and that the
APGD's submittal of study schedules
would then complete the above
condition. ARB requested an extension
of the deadline to facilitate this
submittal.
Response: The San Diego Air Basin
NAP, as presently submitted, does not^
address nontraditional TSP source
control measures, despite ARB's policy '
statements in other NAPs. The San
Diego NAP must contain a commitment
and a schedule to study nontraditional
TSP source control measures for the San
Diego Air Basin, arid a commitment to
implement those measures necessary to
provide for attainment. EPA will revise
the deadline for State submittal of the
commitments and schedule to
July 13,1981. - •
Commenk'The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval a
reanalysis of the NOj attainment -•
demonstration. The APCD and ARB
commented that a preliminary analysis
of NO* ambient monitoring data
correcting calibration errors suggests
that the San Diego Air Basin may
qualify for NO, attainment status. If the.
analysis confirms that the NO» standard
has been met, redesignation to
attainment will be requested. If the
analysis shows otherwise, additional
time will be needed to revise the .
attainment demonstration.
Response.'EPA will revise the^
deadline for state submittal of either a
reanalysis of the NOi attainment
demonstration, or an NO» analysis
which can support an EPA attainment
redesignation to July 13.1981.
(3) Modeling/Level of Control
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of documentation of the O3
design value and the ratio of non-
methane hydrocarbons to nitrogen
oxides used in the Empirical Kinetic
Modeling Approach (EKMA) Os
analysis. The APCD and CPO ,
commented that the EKMA analysis,
performed by the ARB, is unsuitable for
the San Diego Air Basin. The APCD
further commented that ARB would
have to provide the required
documentation, as the APCD performed
a rollback analysis in the locally
adopted NAP. ARB commented
generally that they do not have the
resources to return to the 1979 NAPs to
correct all minor problems and
simultaneously develop complete and
effective SIP revisions for 1982.
Response: EPA recognizes that the
EKMA analysis contained in the NAP
may not accurately estimate the
emission reductions needed to attain the
Oa standard and that further air quality
21752 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday. April 14. 1981 / Rules and Regulation
analyses must be conducted. Moreover,
the APCO and ARE are currently
developing a more sophisticated O,
modeling analysis for inclusion in the
1982 SIP revision. Therefore, EPA has
determined that the Oi modeling
analysis submitted with the San Diego
NAP is acceptable for the purpose of
1979 SIP revision, since the State's
resources would be better utilized in
developing a more refined modeling
analysis on which fo base changes in
the O» control strategysin tha upcoming-
1982 SIP revision. Thus, EPA'is deleting
the submittal of O, modeling
documentation'for the 1979 SIP revision
as a condition of approval
Comment: The-October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval tha
submittal of modeling results which
estimate the emission reductions
necessary to provide for attainment of
the NO, standard by December 31,1982.
The APCD and AJRB commented that the
NO, attainment status question Created
by the monitoring calibration errors
mentioned above will result either in an
attainment redesignation request or in
additional time needed to perform an
NOi modeling analysis.
Reponse: As with the NO» attainment
demonstration approval condition, EPA
will revise the deadline for the State's
submittal of either NO, modeling results,
or an NO, analysis which can support
an EPA attainment redesignation to July
13,198T.
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of documentation of the TSP
design value, and modeling results
which estimate the emission reductions
necessary to provide for attainment of
the TSP standard. ARB commented that
it would be extremely difficult to submit
a modeling analysis which takes
nontraditional TSP sources into account
by the proposed December 1980
deadline. ARB requested that the
.submittal deadline be revised to
December 31,1981.
Response: EPA will revise the
deadline for submittal of the TSP design
value documentation and modeling
results to December 31,1981 as
requested. It should be noted that in
commenting on proposed nilemaking
notices for other California TSP
nonattainment areas, ARB requested the
same December 31.1981 deadline in
order to maintain coordination in the
State's TSP work. . . _
(4) Legally Adopted Measures/
Schedules
Comment: In response to EPA's citing
the lack of legally enforceable
regulations for seven volatile organic
compound (VOC) source categories, the
APCD and ARB commented that locally
adopted rules for these VOC sources
have been or will be submitted to EPA.
Response: The State submitted the
required VOC rules on October 15 and
25.1979. EPA will propose action and
invite public comment on these rules in
a separate Federal Register notice.
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of legally enforceable
commitments and implementation
schedules for the necessary TCMs (at a
minimum, the seven TCMs identified in
the NAP as reasonably available). CPO
commented that they will provide the
necessary commitments to ARB for
submittal to EPA and requested an
extension of the submittal deadline. The
APCD commented that EPA should
consider local adoption of model
ordinances developed by CPO as
evidence of commitments to implement
or enforce NAP control measures.
Response: Local adoption of model
ordinances could provide evidence of
commitments to implement control
measures if supported by the necessary
commitments of staff and financial
resources for implementation and/or
enforcement The adequacy of such
adopted model ordinances will be
determined at the time of their submittal
to EPA by the State. EPA will revise the
deadling for State submittal of the TCM
commitments and implementation
schedules to July 13,1981.
Comment: ARB commented that EPA
should specify requirements for
acceptable commitments from
transportation planning agencies to
implement the necessary TCMs.
Response: EPA requirements for
implementation commitments have been
discussed in previous meetings with
ARB, CPO, and the San Diego County
APCD. At a minimum, these
commitments shall consist of
resolutions, letters or other devices
adopted by thp policy bodies of each
agency or entity responsible for
implementing the control measures.
Included in these devices must be:
(a) an acknowledgment of the
agency's role in implementing specific
NAP related control strategies:
(b) an identification of specific agency
tasks to be carried out in fulfillment of
that role; and
(c) specified implementation dates,
and, where appropriate, completion'
dates for each of the identified tasks.
Scheduling must be consistent with
requirements for reasonable further
progress (RFP>.
Implementation commitments must be
further supported by explicit budgetary
commitments, to be discussed below
under criterion 10. ".Resources."
Comment The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of a commitment in legally.
enforceable form to implement all.
control measures necessary for
attainment of the NO, standard by the
statutory date. The APCD and ARB
commented that if the current analysis
of NO* ambient data shows San Diego
County not to be in attainment,
additional time beyond the proposed,
submittal deadline will be needed.
Response: As with the NOt attainment
demonstration and modeling conditions
of approval, EPA will revise the
deadline for the State's submittal of
either a commitment fo implement all
necessary NOa control measures, or an
NOi analysis which can support an EPA
attainment redesignation to July 13.
1981.
(5) Emission Reduction Estimates
Comments: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of annual emission reduction
estimates per control tactic per
pollutant Both the APCD and CPO
commented that they will provide such
estimates for stationary and
transportation control measures to ARB
for submittal to EPA and requested an
extension of the submittal deadline.
Response: EPA will revise the
deadline for State submittal of emissi
reduction estimates per control tactic to
(90 days after publication of this notice).
(8) Reasonable Further Progress
Comment: The October 4.1979 notice
noted that a TCM monitoring program
must be in place and included in the
1980 annual report. CPO commented
thai Work Element 20S.06 of the CPO
FY-80 Overall Work Program calls for
development of a transportation
monitoring program. CPO further'
commented that similar monitoring
programs should be developed for non-
transportation control tactics, or a clear
demonstration be made that the existing
monitoring programs are adequate. The
APCD commented that its existing
stationary source monitoring program
through the EPA Compliance Data
System is sufficient and there is no need
to require additional stationary source '
monitoring.
Response: EPA concurs with the
APCD in that existing stationary source
monitoring in San Diego County is
adequate. The 1981 annual report must
include the results of a fully
implemented TCM monitoring program.
(7) Emissions Growth
No comments were received.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday. April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 21753
(8) Annual Reporting
Comment: The October 4.1979 notice
posed as a condition of approval the
yuomittal of a commitment to annual
reporting. The APCD, ARB, and CPO
commented that they have already
committed to submit annual reports -
through EPA grants and thus requested
' that the above condition be deleted.
Response: EPA concurs and is
deleting the commitment to annual
reporting as a condition of approval,
(9) Permit Program - • .
Comment In response to EPA'a citing
in the October 4.1979 notice the lack of
an adopted and legally enforceable NSR.
rule, the APCO and ARB commented
that adopted NSR rules for San Diego
County would be submitted.
— Response: The State submitted the
San Oiego County NSR rules on
February 13,1980. EPA's review of these
rules can be found in the Supplemental
Revisions section of this notice and in
EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum.
(10) Resources
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of the financial and personnel
resource commitments necessary to
implement the NAP. The APCD and
CPO commented that they will submit
iget and manpower figures for the
_iTent fiscal year, as well as proposed
budget and manpower estimates for the
next fiscal year, in the 1980 and
subsequent annual reports. ARB
commented that it is infeasible for
California agencies to make multi-year
budget commitments and that the most
feasible approach would be to submit
annual budget documentation as part of
each annual report '
Response: EPA recognizes the
limitations involved here and agrees
that an appropriate approach is to
submit annual local budget
commitments. Therefore, the
identification of necessary resource-
commitments to implement the NAP
must be submitted by the State to EPA
when the local budgets are adopted. The
NAP must include a commitment to
provide this information annually.
(11) Public and Government
Involvement
Comment The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of an analysis of the health
effects of the NAP provisions. The '
APCD commented that an adequate -
discussion of the health effects of the
NAP provisions exists in the NAP
pport documents and that an
^tension of the deadline is needed for
ARB to formally submit this discussion
to EPA,
Response: EPA will revise the
deadline for State submittal of the
analysis of the health effects of the NAP-
to July 13,1981.
(12) PublicHearing
No comments were submitted.
(13) Extension Requirements
Comment- The October 4,1979 notice •
proposed as-a condition of approval the
submittal of those portions of the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) that relate to an analysis of
alternatives which demonstrates that
benefits outweigh environmental costs
when granting an NSR permit to a major
emitting facility. The APCD commented
that the alternative site analysis
provision in their NSR rules is adequate
to fulfill the above condition, thus
satisfying the requirements of Section
172(b)(ll)(A) of the dean Air Act
Response: As noted in EPA's
Evaluation Report Addendum, the San
Diego County NSR rules [i.e., Rule
20.4(g)] do not fully satisfy Section
172(b)(ll)(A) of the Act juid.the rules
should be revised to do so. However, in
response to the proposed condition of.
approval cited above, the State
submitted the relevant portions of
CEQA on October 20,1980. As
discussed in Supplemental Revisions,
. the CEQA submittal satisfies the
proposed condition of approval and
therefore it was deleted in today's
notice. _
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of commitments to establish,
expand, or improve public
transportation to meet basic
transportation needs. CPO commented
that they produced a draft report
concluding that the existing transit
service meets basic transportation
needs. CPO also commented that Work
Element 202.06 of the CPO FY-80
Overall Work Program includes a task
ta analyze the development of
modifications to the existing public
transportation system to meet existing
and projected needs. CPO and ARB
further commented that EPA needs to
provide guidance to define "basic
transportation needs" and the
acceptability of commitments to meet
such needs, and both requested an
extension of the submittal deadline.
Response:
Guidance on basic transportation
needs has now been developed by EPA
Headquarters in consultation with the
Department of Transportation (DOT),
and was published as proposed policy in
the Federal Register on September 18,
1980 (45 FR 62170). Also, as has been
discussed previously with all lead
agencies and states requesting
extensions for either CO or Oi '
nonattainment areas in Region IX,
policy level commitments should be
provided by the lead agency,
acknowledging the explicit requirements
of Sections 110(a)(3](D) and 110(c)(5)(B)
of the Act, and committing to develop
plans and programs to meet those
requirements, such as those currently
being analyzed by CPO. EPA will revise
the deadline for State submittal of the
commitments to meet basic
transportation needs to July 13,1981.
Comment: CPO commented that
efforts to enhance air quality and
conserve energy through increased
transit are hampered by the
unavailability of transit coaches and by
partially contradictory Federal ,
objectives of improving air quality and
providing increased mobility for the
physically and economically
disadvantaged.
Response: While the unavailability of
transit coaches is an important short-
term limitation, expansion of existing
bus fleets is only one element of what
should be a coordinated transportation
program aimed at maximizing mobility
while minimizing energy consumption
and air pollution.
Also, while certain Federal objectives
may compete for the same-limited
resources, EPA disagrees with the
notion that Federal air quality objectives
and objectives of increased mobility for
the physically and economically
disadvantaged are contradictory. EPA
feels that any definition of "basic
transportation needs" must necessarily
provide for services to the economically
disadvantaged and to those persons
with special mobility problems (i.e., the
physically handicapped).
EPA also recognizes that once a
determination of necessary
improvements to meet ba'sic
transportation needs has been made,
short-term financing limitations may
create some immediate conflicts
between transit expansion for air
quality purposes and modification to
fulfill the needs of the elderly and
physically handicapped. However, EPA
feels that these goals can be addressed
with a balanced transit alternative
which proves sufficiently responsive to
both areas.
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval the
submittal of a schedule to analyze
alternative packages of TCMs, including
(but not limited] to those measures
listed in Section 108(f)(l)(A) of the Clean
Air Act The notice further proposed
21754 Federal Register / Voi. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
that these alternative packages include
the three Section 108(f)(l)(A) measures
which were not addressed in the NAP.
CPO commented that they intend to
develop and analyze alternative
packages of TCMs, and will transmit a
schedule for this analysis to ARB for
submittal to EPA. CPO also commented
that they will analyze one of the TCMs
not addressed in the NAP (extended
idling controls), but noted the other two
TCMs (fleet vehicle controls, and
alternative engines and fuels) can best
be analyzed by EPA and/or ARB. CPO
requested guidance on the level and
scope of analysis required at the local/
regional level for the latter two TCMs.
In addition. ARB commented generally
that EPA should provide additional time
for ARB review of the locally developed.
actions, in recognition of the complex
two-tiered process of plan development
and implementation in California.
Response: Although fleet vehicle
controls and alternative engines and
fuels can best be analyzed by EPA and
ARB, there are many ways in which
these control measures can be carried
out at the local level. Examples include
programs and incentives to consolidate
fleet vehicle trips, and incentives for
fleet owners to use alternative engines
and/or fuels (e.g., electric, propane,
diesel, or conversion of the fleet to
newer, more efficient vehicles). CPO
needs to examine the feasibility and
potential effectiveness of such
alternatives in cooperation with other
local agencies. As for the proposed •
condition of approval EPA will revise
the deadline for State submittal of a
schedule to analyze alternative
packages of TCMs to July 13.1981.
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice,
•noted that the State should submit in the
1980 annual report procedures for
determining conformity with the SIP of
any project program, or plan over which
CPO has approval authority. CPO and
ARB commented that EPA needs to
provide guidelines to State and local
agencies for developing such
procedures. CPO also commented that
conformity determination procedures
are currently being developed under
Work Element 202.06 of the CPO FY-60
Overall Work Program, but that these
procedures should be submitted to EPA
some time after local receipt of the EPA
guidance,
Response: On June 12,1980, EPA and
DOT issued joint national policy for
state and local agencies to use in
developing conformity evaluation and
determination procedures. Additional
regional guidance is currently being
prepared by the EPA Region IX Office to
supplement the national policy.
However, EPA recommends that CPO's
development of improved procedures
not wait for issuance of the additional
guidance.
(14) Extension Requirements for VOC
RACT
Comment: As noted above under
Criterion 4. "Legally Adopted
Measures/Schedules," the APCD and
ARB commented that the required VOC
rules identified in the October 4,1979
notice as missing have been or will be
submitted to EPA.
Response: The State submitted Hie
required VOC rules on October 15 and
25,1979. EPA will propose action and
invite public comment on these rules in
a separate Federal Register notice.
Comment: The October 4,1979 notice
proposed as a condition of approval tha-
snbmittal of a fixed-roof storage tank
rule which represents RACT or a
demonstration that the fixed-roof
storage tank rule submitted on May 23,
1979 (Rule 61.3) represents RACT. The
APCD commented that they will submit
documentation demonstrating VOC
emission reductions under the rule
submitted on May 23,1979 to be within
5% of the reductions achievable through
RACT. ARB commented that they
received amended rules for
consideration from the APCD and would
forward the amended rules to EPA when
then* review had been completed.
Response: ARB submitted ~
' amendments to Rules 61.0 through 61.4
as SIP revisions on July 25 and
December 15.1980. EPA will propose
action and invite public comment on
these rules in a separate Federal
Register notice. The adequacy of
amended Rule 61.3 as it relates to RACT
is discussed in that notice.
National Comments
One commenter submitted extensive
comments and requested that they be
considered part of the record for each
state plan. Another commenter, a
national environmental group, discussed
EPA action on permit fee systems and
the composition of state boards.
Although some of the issues raised are
not relevant to provisions in the San
Diego Air Basin NAP, the November 10,
1980 Federal Register (45 FR 74480)
should be referenced for a discussion of
these comments and EPA's responses.
EPA Actions
Introduction
It is important for reviewers of this
notice to understand the overall nature
of NAPs and of EPA's review and
approval role. Central to .such an
understanding is recognition that action
may be taken on a portion of the NAP
for a specific pollutant Therefore, a
portion of the NAP may be adequate for
one pollutant but inadequate for other
EPA is taking final action on all portions
of the San Diego NAP for each pollutant
except the inspection/maintenance
portion. As a result this notice contains
a series of actions for each portion of
the NAP for each pollutant rather than a
single action. One of the following three
actions may be taken for each portion of
the NAP:
1. Disapproval where the State does
not agree to correct minor deficiencies
or where deficiencies are of such
magnitude as to significantly interfere
with the basic objective: or
2. Approval where the portion of the
NAP under consideration meets all
requirements; or
3. Approval with conditions where
deficiencies exist but where the effect
of the deficiency is not judged to be -
major and the State has agreed to take
those steps necessary to correct the
deficiency. In this case, it is EPA's intent
that the State proceed expeditiously to
correct the noted deficiency by certain
dates.
EPA's final actions on each portion of
the NAP for each pollutant is based on
the proposed rulemaking notice,
supplemental revisions submitted by the
State, and public comments received b-
EPA. Each action is described below.
Approved Portions of the NAP
As proposed in the October 4,1979
notice, EPA is taking final action to
approve the following portions of the
NAP, regardless of the approvability of
the overall NAP with respect to Part D:
emission inventory for HC, CO, and
NO,; modeling for CO; reasonable
further progress; emissions growth; and
public hearing. In addition, without legal
authority to implement and enforce an I/
M program, the NAP cannot
demonstrate RFP for ozone and CO
through 1987. However, at this time
there is no point in disapproving the RFP
portion of the NAP for ozone and CQ-
since the key deficiency is the I/M
portion of the NAP. Once I/M legislation
is passed, the State would be able to
demonstrate RFP and the NAP could be
approvedrTherefore, EPA is approving
the RFP portion of the NAP. No
supplemental revisions or public
comments were received addressing the
approvability of these portions.
Further, as discussed in the
Supplemental Revisions and Public
Comments sections of this notice, the
following portions of the NAP satisfy
Part D requirements; modeling for Q»;
annual reporting; and extension
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 21755
requirements for NSR [i.e.. the
requirements of Section 172{b)(ll)(A) of
•he Clean Air Act). Therefore. EPA is
Icing final action to approve these
portions of the NAP..
As proposed. EPA is taking final
action under Section 110 and Part D of.
the Clean Air Act to approve the
following San Diego County APCD rules
listed in the October 4,1979 notice: .
Rule 2(t) Definitions
Rule 81.5 Visible Emissions Standard* for
Vapor Control Systems
Rule 61.7 Spillage of Volatile Organic
Compounds. - - '
However, as discussed in the Supplemental
Revisions section of this notice. EPA is
proposing action and inviting public comment
on the BOG RACT rules recently-submitted
(February 4,1981 (TM) Federal Register, 46
FR10750). Therefore, this notice is not taking
final action on the "extension requirements
for VOC RACT'portion of die plan. .
Conditionally Approved Portions of the
NAP -
As discussed in Supplemental
Revisions; the NSR rules submitted on
February 13,1980 are (1) similar to the
State's draft NSR rule in that the
definitions and requirements are
substantially the same and are
equivalent to the draft rule in that they
are at least as effective in meeting the
requirements of Section 173, and (2)
-ontain only minor deficiencies with
jpect to Part D. Therefore, EPA is
taking final action to conditionally
approve the San Diego County NSR
rules and thus conditionally approve the
permit program portion of the NAP with
respect to Part D. Further, EPA finds
that good cause exists for taking final
action on the San Diego County APCD
NSR rules without providing for
additional public comment (see S U.S.C.
Section 553(b)(B), Administrative
Procedure Act) since:
1. The rules are similar and equivalent
to the State draft rule which was subject
to public comment.
2. The rules will be in effect for only a
short time since the State is required to
meet new EPA requirements for NSR by
May 7,1981.
3. Final action on the rules will
remove the current prohibition on
construction of major new or modified
sources in the San Diego Air Basin with
respect to particulate and NO,
emissions.
As discussed in the October 4,1979
notice and the Public Comments section
of this notice, the following portions of
the NAP contain minor deficiencies:'.
emission inventory for TSP; attainment
provision; modeling for TSP and NO2;
'•-gaily adopted measures/schedules
xcept for I/M); emission reduction
estimates; resources: public and
governmental involvement; and
extension requirements for basic
transportation needs and other
measures (i.e., the requirements of
Sections 110(a)(3){D), ll<Hc)(5)(B), and
172(b)(ll)(c) of Ae Clean Air Act).
Therefore, EPA is taking final action to
conditionally approve these portions of
the NAP with respect to Part D.
ARB, CPO, and the APCD have
provided assurances through the public
comment letters and Section 105 air
program grants thatthe minor
deficiencies will be corrected by
satisfying the-conditions of approval
discussed below. EPA finds these
assurances acceptable for the purposes
of conditional approval.
The conditions of approval and the
associated deadlines are:
For ozone, CO, TSP, and NOi:
1. By May 7,1981, the San Diego
County APCD's NSR rules must be
revised and submitted as an SIP
revision. In revising the NSR rules, the
State/APCD must address (!) any new
requirements hi EPA's amended
regulations for NSR under Section 173 of
the Clean Air Act (May 13,1980, 45 FR
31307; and August 7.1980, 45 FR 52676)
which the APCD rules do not currently
satisfy and (2) the deficiencies cited in
EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum
which still apply despite EPA's new
NSR requirements. The Evaluation
Report Addendum is contained in
document file NAP-CA-19 and is
available at the EPA Region IX Office
and the-EPA Library in Washington,
D.C.
2. By July 13.1981, emission
projections for December 31,1982.
3. By July 13,1981, annual emission
reduction estimates per control tactic
per pollutant
4. By JuljrlS, 1981, a commitment to
submit annual implementing agency
fiscal and personnel commitments to
implement the San Diego Air Basin
NAP.
5. By July;13,1981. identification and
analysis of the health effects of the San
Diego Air Basin nonattainment area
plan provisions.
For ozone and CO:
1. By July 13,1981, written evidence of
local adoption of legally enforceable
commitments and-implementation
schedules consistent with reasonable
further progress for the necessary
transportation control measures (TCMs)
' (at a minimum, the seven TCMs
•identified in the NAP as reasonably
available).
2. By July 13,1981, a commitment to
establish, expand, or improve public
transportation to meet basic
transportation needs.
3. By July 13,1981, a schedule to
analyze alternate packages of TCMs,
including, but not limited to, those
measures listed in Section 108(f)(l)(A) of
the Clean Air Act"
4. By July 13,1981. emission
projections for December 31,1987.
For TSP:
1. By December 31.1981,
documentation for theTSP design value
used to determine allowable emissions,
and modeling results which show the
emission reductions necessary to •
provide-for attainment of the TSP
standards by December 31,1982. "
2. By December 31,1981, a refined
emission inventory for particulates,
identifying subcategories of the fugitive
dust source category and quantifying the
associated emissions. ,
3. By July 13,1981, a commitment and
a schedule to study nontraditional TSP
source control measures, and a
commitment to implement those
necessary to provide for attainment.
ForNO*
1. By July 13,1981. a reanalysis of the
NQt attainment demonstration,
modeling results which show the
emission reductions necessary to
provide for attainment of the NOi
standard by December 31,1982, and
written evidence of commitments in
legally enforceable form to implement-
all necessary measures to provide for
attainment by December 31,1982; or an
NOt analysis which can support an EPA
attainment redesignation pursuant to
Section 107 of the Clean Air Act
It should be noted that additional
conditions may result from EPA's
review, in a separate Federal Register
notice, of the VOC rules submitted on
October 15 and 25,1979, and oi/July 25
and December 15,1980, which are listed
in Supplemental Revisions.
Final Action on the Overall NAP
As the major deficiencies in the TSP
and NO* plans have been corrected and
only minor deficiencies remain in these
plans, today's actions result in a final
overall conditional approval of the NAP
for TSP and NO, with respect to Part D:
This removes the current prohibition on
construction of major new or modified
sources in the San Diego Air Basin with
respect to particulate and NO,
emissions.
However, since this notice does not
address a major portion of the San
Diego NAP for CO and O,. the
inspection/maintenance program,
today's actions do not result in a final
overall approval or disapproval of the
NAP for CO and O, with respect to Part
D. This retains the current prohibition
on construction of-major new or
21756 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
modified VOC and CO sources in the
San Diego Air'Basin CO and O,
nonattainment areas.
EPA has a responsibility to take final
action as soon as possible in order to lift
construction prohibitions, since the
State has submitted conditionally
approvable TSP and NO, plans for the
San Diego Air Basin. Therefore, EPA
finds that good cause exists for making
this action immediately effective.
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of today's action
is available only by the filing of a
petition for review in the United States
court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of "today. Under
Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
the requirements which are the subject
of today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Conditional Approval Procedure
A discussion of conditional approval
and its practical effect appears in two
supplements to the General Preamble
[44 FR 38583 (July 2,1979) and 44 FR
67192 (November 23,1979)]. Conditional
approval requires the State to submit
additional material by the deadlines
specified in today's notice. There will be
no extensions granted to the conditional-
approval deadlines being promulgated
today. EPA will follow the procedures
described below in determining whether
(He State has. satisfied the conditions.
1. If the State submits the required
additional documentation according to
schedule, EPA will publish a notice in
the Federal Register announcing receipt
of the material. The notice of receipt will
also announce that the conditional-
approval is continued pending EPA's
final action on the submittal.
2. EPA will evaluate the State's
submittal to determine if the conditions
are fully met. After EPA's review is
completed, a Federal Register notice will
be published proposing or taking final
action to either (1) find the conditions
have been met and approve the
submittal or (2) find the conditions have
not been met and disapprove the -
submittal. If the submittal is
disapproved, the Section 110(a)(2)(I)
restrictions on construction would be
effective. ,
, 3. If the State fails to submit the
required materials to meet a condition,
EPA will publish a Federal Register
notice shortly after the expiration of the
deadline. The notice will announce that
the conditional approval is withdrawn,
the NAP is disapproved, and the Section
110(a)(2)(I) prohibition on construction
is in effect.
Certain deadlines for satisfying
conditions have been changed from
those proposed and are being
promulgated today without further
notice and comment. EPA finds that for
good cause additional notice and
comment on these deadlines are-
unnecessary (See U.S.C. Section 553
(b)(3), Administrative Procedure Act).
The State is the party responsible for
meeting the deadlines. In addition, the
public has had an opportunity to
comment generally on the concept of
conditional approval and on what'
deadlines should apply for these
conditions. (44-FR 38583, July 2,1979 and
44 FR 57109, October 4,1979).
40 CFR Part 52 Rescissions
Since no supplemental revisions-or
public comments were received
regarding EPA's proposed 40 CFR Part
52 rescissions, EPA is taking final action
to rescind the following Federally
promulgated regulations from 40 CFR
Part 52:
Sec. :52.242 Inspection and maintenanceprogram.
52.243 Motorcycle limitation.
52.244 Oxidizing catalyst retrofit.
52.247 Definitions for parking management
regulations.
52.251 Management of parking supply.
SZ257 Computer carpool matching.52.258 Mass transit priority—exclusive bususe.
52.259 Ramp metering and preferential bus/carpool Janes.52.266 Monitoring transportation mode
trends.52.269 Control strategy and regulations:
Photochemical oxidants, paragraph (a).
Attainment Dates
The 1979 edition of 40 CFR Part 52
lists, in Subpart F for California, the
applicable deadlines for attaining the
NAAQS [attainment dates] required by
Section llO(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
For each nonattainment area where a
NAP provides for attainment by the
deadlines required by Section 172(a) of
the Act, the new deadlines are
substituted on California's attainment
date chart in 40 CFR Part 52. The earlier
attainment dates will be referenced in a
footnote to the chart. Sources subject to
plan requirements and deadlines
established under Section 110(a)(2)(A)
prior to the 1977 Amendmentaremain
obligated to comply with those
requirements, as well as the new
Section 172 requirements.
Congress established new attainment •
dates under Section 172(a) to. provide
additional time for previously regulated
sources to comply with new, more
stringent requirements, and to permit
previously uncontrolled sources to
comply with the newly applicable
emission limitations. These new
deadlines were not included to give"
sources that failed to comply with pre-
1977 plan requirements by the earlier
deadlines more time to comply with
those requirements. As noted by
Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing
the 1977 Amendments:_
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act made clear that
each source had to meet its emission limits
"as expeditiousiy as practicable," but not
later than three years/after approval of a
plan. This provision was not changed by the
1977 Amendments. It would be a perversion
of clear Congressional intent to construe Part
D to authorize relaxation or delay of emission
limits for particular sources. The added time
for attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards was provided if
necessary, because of the need to tighten
emission limits or bring previously
uncontrolled sources under control. Delays or
relaxation of emission limits were not
generally authorized or intended under Part D
(123 Cong. Rec. H11958, daily ed. November
1.1977).
To implement Congress' intention that
sources remain~subject to pre-existing
plan requirements, sources cannot be
granted variances extending compliance
dates beyond the attainment da tea
established prior to the 1977
Amendments. EPA cannot approve such
compliance date extensions, even
though a NAP with a later attainment
date has been approved. However, a
compliance date extension beyond a
pre-existing plan attainment date may
be granted if it will not contribute to a
violation of an ambient standard or a
PSD increment [44 FR 20373-74, (April 4,
1979)1.
In addition, sources subject to pre-
existing plan requirements may be
relieved of complying with such
requirements if a NAP imposes new,
more stringent control requirements that
are incompatible with controls required
to meet the pre-existing regulations.
Decisions on the incompatibility of
requirements will be made on a case-by-
case basis.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b) I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This action only approves state
actions. It imposes no hew requirements.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
federal-state relationship, federal
inquiry into the econmic reasonableness
of the state actions would serve no
practical purpose and could well be
improper.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA"
must judge whether a regulation is
"Major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14. 1981 / Rules and Regulations- 21757
Analysis. This regulation is not Major
because it only approves state actions.
•mposes no new regulatory
4iiirement.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office Of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection at EPA Region IX 215
Fremont St, San Francisco CA 94105.
(Sections 110,129.171-178. and 301(a) of the
Clean Ail Act as amended {42 U.S.C. 7410,
7429. 7501-7508, and 7601(a)J)
Dated: April 8,1981.
Walter C Barber,
Acting Administrator.
Note.—tacorporation-by reference of the
State Implementation Plan for the State of
California was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 1,1980.
Subpart F of Part 52 of Chapter I, Title
40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
Subpart F—California
1. Section 52.220, paragraph (c) is
amended by adding subparagraphs
(51)(vii), (62), and (64) as follows:
>
§5&220 Identification of plan.
'c) * * *
t51)***
(vii) San Diego County APCD.
- (A) Amended Rules 2(t), 61.5, and 61.7.
*****
(62) The San Diego Air Basin Control
Strategy (Chapter 14 of the
Comprehensive Revisions to the State of
California Implementation Plan for the
Attainment and Maintenance of
Ambient Air Quality Standards)
submitted on July 5,1979, by the
Governor's designee, except the
inspection/maintenance portion.
Additional documents were also
submitted as Appendices. Those -
portions of the San Diego Air Basin
Control Strategy, including Appendices,
identified by Table 14-1. "Location of
Plan Elements Which Meet Clean Air
Act Requirements" (pages 6-7),
comprise the submitted norfattainment
area plan, except the inspection/
maintenance portion. The remaining -
portions are for informational purposes
only.* * . * * ' *
(64) Revised regulations for the
following APCD submitted on February
13,1980, by the Governor's designee.
(i) San Diego County APCD.
(A) Rules 20.1, 20.2. 20.3, 20.4, 20.5,
).6, and 20.7.
2. Section 52.222 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(3) as follows:
§52.222 Extensions.
(b) • * '
(3) San Diego Air Basin for TSP and
NO*
3. Section 52.223 is amended by
• adding paragraph (b)(4) as follows:
§ S&223 Approval status.
(bP * *
(4) San Diego Air Basin for TSP and
NO,.
*****
4. Section 52.232 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a)(l) thru (a)(3) and adding
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
§52.232 Part 0 conditional approval.
(a) The following portions of the
California SIP contain deficiencies with
respect to^Part D of the Clean Air Act
which must be corrected by meeting the
indicated conditions of Part D plan
approval.
' (1) Imperial County for ozone.
*****
(2) North Central Coast Air Basin for
' ozone.
. (3) South Coast Air. Basin.
(4) San Diego Air Basin.
(i) For ozone, CO, TSP, and NO,:
(A) By May 7,1981. the NSR rules
submitted on March 17,1980 must be
revised and SHbmifted~as an SIP
revision. In revising the NSR rules; the
State/ APCD must address (1) any new
requirements in EPA'a amended
regulations for NSR under Section 173 of
the Clean Air Act (May 13* 1980^45 FR
31307; and August 7,1980, 45 FR 52676)
which the APCD rules do not currently
satisfy and (2) the deficiencies cited in
EPA's Evaluation Report Addendum
which still apply despite EPA's new
NSR requirements. The Evaluation
Report Addendum is contained in
document file NAP-CA-19 and
available at the EPA Region IX Office
and the EPA Library in Washington,D.C:
(B) By (90 days after the publication of
this notice), the submittal of the
following as SIP revisions:
[1] Particulate, volatile organic
compound. CO and NO, emission
projections for December 31,1982 and
volatile organic compound and CO
emission projections for December 31,
1987.
[2] Annual emission reduction
estimates per control tactic for
particulates, NO* VOC and CO.
(3) A commitment to submit annual
implementing agency fiscal and
personnel commitments to implement.
the San Diego Air Basin NAP.
(4] Identification and analysis of the
health effects of the San Diego Air Basin
nonattainment area plan provisions.
(ii) for ozone and CO:
(A) By July 13,1981, the submittal of
the following as SIP revisions:
(1) Written evidence of local adoption
of legally enforceable commitments and
implementation schedules consistent
with reasonable further progress for the
necessary transportation control
measures (TCMs) (at a minimum, the
seven TCMs identified in the San Diego.
Air Basin nonattainment area plan as
reasonably available).
[2] Commitment to establish, expand,
or improve public transportation to meet
basic transportation needs.
(3) A schedule to analyze alternative
packages-of TCMs. Including (but not
limited to) those measures listed in
Section 108(f)(l)(A) of the Clean Air Act.
(iii) For TSP-.
(A) By December 31,1981. the
submittal of the following as an SIP
revision:
(1] Documentation for the TSP design
value used to determine allowable
emissions, and modeling results which
show the emission reductions necessary
to provide for attainment of the TSP
standards by December 31,1982.
' (2) A refined emission inventory for
particulates, identifying subcategories of
the fugitive dust source category and
quantifying the associated emissions.
(B) By July 13,1981 the submittal of
the following as SIP revisions:
[1] A commitment and a schedule to
study nontraditional TSP source control
measures, and a commitment to
implement those necessary to provide
for attainment.
(iv) For NO,:
(A) By July 13,1981, the submittal of
the following as an SIP revision:
(1} A reanalysis of the NO, attainment
demonstration, modeling results which
show the emission reductions necessary
to provide for attainment of the NO,
standard by December 31,1982, and
written evidence of commitments in
legally enforceable form to implement
all necessary measures to provide' for
attainment by December 31,1982; or an
NO, analysis which can support an EPA
attainment redesignation pursuant to
Section 107 of the Clean Air Act.
5. In .§ 52.238, the entries for the San
Diego Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region are revised, and footnote (t) is
21758 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 71 / Tuesday. April 14, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
added to paragraphs (a) through (h), as
follows:
•§ 52.238 Attainment dates for national
standards.
Air quality control region andnonattamment area TSP SO.
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary NO,CO .0,
San Diego Imraswta: •
Eastern portion.—.-
Western portion.—
>)..- (e) (e) (e)..._ (hj ... (h) ..„,..,.... (e) (e)- (el (e) — (i).
...... (h) (i) (i).
• Note.—description of me boundary dividing the Eastern and Westwn portions of the new San Otego mVdState is set out
at 36 FA 22439-40. Novemoer 25, 1971
(i) December 31. 1987.
§§ 52.242, 52.243, 52.244, 52.247, 52.251,
52.257, 52.258, 52.259, and 52.266
[Removed]
6. Sections 52.242, 52.243, 52.244,
52.247, 52.251, 52.257. 52.258, 52.259, and
52.266 are removed and reserved.
|FR Doc. 81-11054 Filed 4-13-81: 8:45 am|
BILUNQ CODE S5«0-3«^*l
40 CFR Part 52
[A-9-FBU 1792-3
Approval and P omulgation of
Implementation Plans; Nonattainment
Area Plans for 1 le State of Nevada
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice f final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: On A
7, 1979 (44 FR 2
the Environmen
(EPA) publisher
rulemaking for
Fernley Area,
Desert, Winnem
Meadows, and
nonattainment
September 9,19
published anothjer notice
rulemaking for
revisions to tho
on July 24 and !
March 17, I960
reevaluate the i
1980 notice, wh
notices and sup
proposed to coi
NAPs, since on
remain with res
Clean Air Act,
- Nonattainment
Further, since
assurances to
deficiencies, El
action to condi
NAPs as revisi<
iril 10 and 27, and May
107, 24880 and 26763)
al Protection Agency
notices of proposed
e Mason Valley/
L nder County, Carson
;cca Segment, Truckee
as Vegas Valley
rea plans (NAPs). On
0 (45 FR 59334) EPA
of proposed
ese areas since
e NAPs were submitted
ptember 18,1979 and
hich causes EPA to
APs. The September 9,
h supersedes the April
lements the May notice,
"itionally approve the
minor deficiencies
ect to Part D of the
Ian Requirements for
\reas."
:he State has provided
cbrreet these minor
V is today taking final
onally approve the
is to the Nevada State
i final
. This action
tion on construction
les a brief summary
taking notice,
nments, and
action on the
Implementation Plaja (SIP)
" removes- the prohib
of major new or modified sources in
these areas.
This notice provii
of the proposed rule
discusses public coi
describes EPA's
NAPs.
DATE Effective Date: This action is
effective April 14.1081.
ADDRESS: A copy of the NAPs
mentioned above isj located at: The
Office of the Federal Register, 1100 "L"
Street N.W., Room J8401, Washington,
D.C. 20408.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Louise P. Giersch, director. Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, ' -
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, Attn:
Douglas Grano (415i 556-2938.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Clean Air Act. as amended in
1977, requires state^ to revise their StPs
for all areas that have not attained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS]. On December 29,1978 the
Governor submitted) revisions to the
Nevada SIP consisting of control
strategies and regulations for Mason
Valley/Fernley Areiu Carson Desert,
Lander County, Wiiinemucca Segment,
Truckee Meadows i nd Las Vegas
Valley. These revisi jns, which comprise
the NAPs, are intended to provide for
the attainment of th j carbon monoxide
(CO), ozone (O3), and total suspended
participate (TSP) N; lAQS, in .the
Truckee Meadows End Las Vegas
Valley areas and thi t TSP NAAQS in the
remaining areas.
On April 10 and 2', and May 7,1979
(44 FR 21307, 24880 i ind 26763) EPA
published notices oi proposed
rulemaking for thest NAPs in the State
of Nevada. Those n< itices provided a
description of the NKPs, summarized
the applicable Clean Air Act
requirements into 14 criteria, compared
the NAPs to those criteria, and proposed
to approvu, conditionally approve or
disapprove portions of the NAPs. On .
September 9,1980 EPA published
another nptice of proposed rulemaking
for these BJAPs since revisions to the
NAPs wetje submitted on July 24 and
Septembej118,1979 and March 17,1980.
The September 9,1980 notice supersedes
the April notices and supplements the
May noticp. The May 7,1979 and
Septembet 9,1980 notices should be
used as reference in reviewing today's
action, j
Inspection/Maintenance Program
"Inspection/Maintenance" (I/M)
refers to a (program whereby motor
vehicles receive periodic inspections to
assess thejfunctioning of their exhaust
emissions pontrol systems. Vehicles
which have excessive emissions niusK.
then undergo mandatory maintenance.
Generally,iI/M programs include
passenger cars, although other classes
can be included as well. Operation of
noncomplying vehicles is prohibited.
This is effectively accomplished by
requiring proof of compliance to
purchase license plates or to register a
vehicle. A windshield sticker system,
much like that of many safety inspection
programs, ian be used if it can be
demonstrated that equal effectiveness
will be achieved.
Section i?2 of the Clean Air Act
requires thHSIPs for States which
include nonattainment areas must meet
certain criteria. For areas which
demonstrate that they will not be able to
attain the ajmbient air quality standards
for ozone or carbon monoxide by 1982,
despite theiimplementation of all
reasonablylavailable control measures,
an extension beyond 1982 will be
granted. In jsuch cases Section
172(b)(ll)(8) requires that "the plan
provisions $hall establish a specific
schedule for implementation of a vehicle
emission control inspection and
maintenance program * * *."
EPA issued guidance on February 24,
1978. on tha general criteria for approval
of the 1979 SIP revision including I/M,
and on Julyil7,1978. regarding the
specific criteria for I/M approval. Both
of these items are part of the SIP
guidance material referred to in the
General Prejamble for Proposed
Rulemaking! (44 FR 20372). Though the
}uly 17,197£ guidance should be
consulted fc r details, the key I/M
elements rei |uired for approval of the
1979 SIP revision are as follows:
(1) Legal.
government
necessary s
uthority.-Slales or local
i must have adopted the
atutes, regulations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
25324 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 87 / Wednesday. May 8. 1981 / Proposed Rules
be excerpted from
Transportation Imj
(TIP) for the Milwa
Area.
2. The State of W
itself to submit by
funding/manpowei
ccrnrnitment action
legislature.
3. The State of \\
itself to. submit by
revised implement;
I/M program.
Pursuant to the p
Section 805(b). the
certified (46 FR 870
proposed rule will
hava a significant \
substantial numbe.
This action only pr
State action and. tl
new requirements,
nature of the feder
federal inquiry into
ressonableness of
would serve no pra
cou!d well beirnpr
1081 the Administr
a'jciovals under S3
at 45 FR 8709.
Under Executive
must judge whethe
"major" and. there
requirfiir.ent of a r
analysis. This regu
will not bo "major"
Executive Order 12
action only approv
This action only pr
comment those i
Wisconsin has eomiiiUed itself to
submit revisions to
which was conditi
elsewhere in today
This notice of pr
issued under aatho
172. and301(a).of t
amended.
Daled: March 25.1 it.
VaMas V. Adamkus, i
A ding Rvgfanul A dinir.
|TK Doc. 61-1361)0 Kilct! 5-5-8!
B1LLIHG CODE 5SSO-3S-M
el932
ovement Program
cee Urbanized
sconsin committed
ugust 15,1981 the .
esource
aken by the State
sconsin committed
ugust 15.1981 a
on schedule for ita
(visions of 5 U.S.C.
dministrator has
that the attached
it. if promulgated,
onomic impact on a
)f small entities,
poses to approve a
refore, imposes no
toreover. due to the
-state relationship,
hs economic
3 State action
tical purpose and
si. On January 27,
or published tha
n for sil SI?
ion 110 of tha Act
Jrder 12291, EPA N
a regulation is
re, subject to ths
ulatory impact
tion. if promulgated,
s defined by
il. because this
a State action.
>oses for public
t by which
s CO and I/M SIP.
ally approved
Federal, Register,
losed rulemaktng is
ty of Sections 110,
: Clean Air Act, as
•stralor.
8:JS a.-nj
4C CFR Part 31
[A-9FRL1311r6]
Air Quolity Planning Purposes;
Designation of Areas: Nevada and
California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agf.-r.cy (EPA).
Action: Proposed rule-making.
Si/.VMARY:Thi? notice proposes to revise
'!••• :!l.'"iin.mer:l status designations for
the western portion of San Diego
County, California and the Truckee
Meadows (Wnshoe County) area of
Nevada. The designation for west San
Diego County is proposed to be changed
from nonattainment to attainment for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The designation
For Truckee Meadows is proposed to be
revised from nonattainment foroxidant
to attainment for ozone.
The EPA invites public comments on .
the proposed redesignations. If these
areas are redesignated to attainment,
the requirements of Part D, of the Clean
Air Act. as amended, would no longar
apply to west San Diego County for N0»
and to Truekee Meadows for ozone.
DATE Comments may be submitted on
or before June 5,19B1.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
directed to: David Howekamp. Chief.
Air Programs Branch (A-2), Air and
Hazardous Materials Division.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105_.
Information pertinent to the proposed
rsdssigivdtiorts- is available for public
inspsction at normal business hours at
the EPA Region IX Office at the address
above end at the following locations:
Public Information Reference Unit,
Room 2404 (EPA Library), 401 "M"
Street, SVA. Washington, D.C. 20400
California Air Resources Board, 1102
"Q" Street, Sacramento, CA 95812
Can Dlega Air Pollution Control District,
SI 50 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego,
CA 92123
Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, 201 South Fall
Street. Carson City, NV 69710
WashoB County District Health
Dspartmer.t, Division of
Environmental Services, Wells ,
Avenue at 9th Street, Reno, NV BS520
FOB FUftTHER IHFO3MATION CONTACT.
Douglas Grano, Chief. State
Implementation Plan Section (A-2-4),
Air Programs Branch, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division. EPA
Region IX, 215 Fremont Street. San
Francisco, CA P4103, Attn: Ronald
Leach, (415) 55&-972S
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 3,1978. under Paragraph
107(d)fl2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). as.
amendsd, EPA promulgated attainment
status designations for all stales (43 FR
S952). The western portion of San Diego
County, California (for a boundary
description sec 3G FR 22439, November
25.1971) was designated as
nonnttatnment for NOs. The Truckce
Meadows nn-:i of iVcvada ivss
photochemical oxidant. Under
Paragraph 107{dj(5] of the CAA. a state
may revise its designations of
attainment status and submit them to
EPA for consideration and
promulgation.
On February 8.1979 (44 FR 8202). EPA
revised the oxidant standard of 0.03
parts per million (ppm) to an ozone
standard of 0.12 ppm. In addition, EPA
established a statistical method of
determining whether the standard has
been exceeded. The national standards
for ozons are published as a revision to
40 CFR 50.9 and the statistical method
as the new Appendix H. 40 CFR Part 50,
The demonstration of attainment/
nonattainment for the ozone standard
must be based upon the calculated
number of expected exceedances of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) at each monitoring station.
Threa years of air quality data are
needed to accurately determine the
number of expected exceedances. The
average number of expected
exceedances per year at each
Tnor.llonsg station must not excaed 1.0 if
the a:ea is to be designated as
attainment. Specific provisions are also
included in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix H,
for ds'erminir.g whether compliance
with the NAAQS can be assumed for
days with insufficient data. For all
NAAQS pollutants, except O,. eight :'•
quarters of data with-no violations are
required for a rcdesignation to
attainment. .
Proposed Redesignntion for Truekee
Meadows (Ozone)
A redesignation request was
submitted to EPA by the State of
Nevada for Truckee Meadows on
November 5.1980. On March 18.1981.
Washoe County submitted to EPA a
summary of the highest ozone ,
concentrations in Truckee Meadows
over tha past three years (1978 through "
1980). Since the average number of
expected exceedances over the past
three years is less than 1.0, EPA balieves
that the Truckee Meadows area of
Nevada should be redesigns ted
attainment for ozone.
Proposed Redesignation of West San
Diego County (NO?)
On March 26,1031. the California Air
Resources Board requested that S;m
Diego County be redosignated fro;n
nomittainment to attainment for
nitrogen dioxide. This proposal concerns
only the western portion of the County,
since tha eastern section is already
designated attainment for nitrogen
dioxide. Attached to the. Slatf.'s'requos'.
.v.'tis n r.;:~:tii:'.:•;»' of ;:ir qii;i!ily ci;;t;i
I
Fedora! Register / Vol. 46, No. .17 / \Vethiesfi-jy, May G. J<!31 / Proposed Rulrs
showing no violations of t!
liioxitie NAAQS in the Coi
past two years (1979 and 19GO).
Based upon a reviev
dioxide air quality dal
that the NAAQS for N
attained in the wester
Diego County.
Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing th.
portion of San Diego County in
California be redesignated to a
for nitrogen dioxide. EPA is also
proposing that theTruckee Meai
area of Nevada be redesignated
attainment for ozone.
If these areas are re
proposed, the Part D r
Clean Air Act would i
NOS in western San D
.ozone in Truckee Mea
these areas remain subject to the
requirements of Part D for these
pollutants until EPA approves the
requested redesignalions in a final
rulemaking action.
Pursuant to the proi
605(b) the Administra
(46 FR G7Q9} that the s
not have a significant
on a substantial number of small
entities. This action only approve
actions. It imposes no nexv requir
Moreover, due to the nature of the
federal-state relationship, Federal
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the Sta
would serve no practical ]
could well be improper.
Under Executive Order
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore
requirement of a Regv
Analysis. This regulal
because it is proposin
actions. It imposes no
requirements.
This proposal was i
Office of Managemen
review, as required b;
12291. Any comments
and any EPA responses to these
comments are available for public
inspection at EPA Re:
Hazardous Materials
Fremont Street, San F
S4105.
(Sections }07(d) and 301,.,
Act. as amended 42 U.S.C. 7407(d) and
"601 (a)) .
Dated: April 17, 5331.
Louise Giersch,
/1 cling fit^nio.iol A dminis'rator.
ilrtl 4-5-81: B:« am|
6IUJNG CODE 6S60-3S-M
jt««r. •<•* — ,^—ua.^-J. -i
•>£ nitrogen
unly for the
I960).
the nitrogen
PA believes
lave been
rtionof San
10 western
ily in
i to attainment
is also
e Meadows
;nated
°nated as
rements of the
)nger apply for
County and
vs. However,,
t to the
• these
aves the
in a final
ins of 5 U.S.C.
las certified
,hed rule will
nomic impact
if small
approves state
v requirements.
re of the
Federal
te actions
purpose and
12291, EPA
illation is
aject to the
>ry Impact
is not "major"
>proval of state
v regulatory
nitted to the
d Budget for
eculive Order
n OMB to EPA
o these
or public
IX, Air and
ision, 215
' /"* ACisco, CA
if (he Clean Air
407(d) and
tor.
m|
\
40 CFR Part ai
[A-8-FRL 1811-8J
Air Quality Planning
Designation of Area
AGENCY: Environmen
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rul
SUMMARY: This notic
redesignate Weber a
Utah under Section 1
Act from nonattainm
for ozone. This actioi
request from the Gov
which was received 1
'urposes;
; Utah
al Protection •
:making.
proposes to
id Utah Counties in
17 of the Clean Air
:nt to attainment
results from a
:rnor of Utah
v EPA on February
3, 1981, and showed i lat the national
standards for ozone Have not been
violated in either county since 1978.
DATE: Comments due
ADDRESSES: Written
be addressed to: Rob
Chief, Air Programs I
Environmental Prole*
Lincoln Street, Denvf
Copies of the subn
for public inspection
and 4:00 p.m., Monde
the following offices:
Environmental Prote
Region VIII. Air Pr
1860 Lincoln Street
80295
Environmental Prote>
Public Information
City
r>Qr«.n
Pfnun
From the above da
the expected exceed
communities is equa
Therefore, EPA toda
change the designati
Weber and Utah Coi
nonattainrnent to att
persons are invited t
and comment on the
redesignation.
Pursuant to the pri
Regulatory Flexibilit
Section 605[b}), the i
certified (46 FR 8709
action will not, if prc
significant economic
substantial number <
This action only app
June 5, 1981.
:omments should
;rt R. DeSpain,
ranch,
tion Agency, I860
r. Colorado 80295.
!ttal are available -
jetween 8:00 a.m.
y through Friday at
,
tion Agency,
igrams Branch,
Denver, Colorado
ition Agency,
Reference Unit,
County
W/chj»
,--- , "">h ,
ta it is evident that
snces in both
to or less than one.
' proposes to
>ns for ozone in
nties from
linment. Interested
> examine the data
proposed
visions of the
rAct(5U.S.C.
.dministratar has
that the proposed
mulgated.havea
impact on a
f small entities.
oves state actions.
It imposes no new requirement. •
r- :
Waterside Mail, 4C
Washington. D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORft
David Kircher, Air P
Environmental Prote
Lincoln Street, Denv
t
)' M Street. SAV..
ZJM60
t. moN CONTACT:
n igrams Branch.
ction Agency, 1860
er, Colorado G0295,
(303) 837-3711
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOpMATJON: On
March 3, 1978 (43 FR 6954), EPA
published nonattainnient area
designations for Utah' which, inter alia.
designated Weber and Utah Counties as
nonatlainment for ozone. These
designations were based upon* violations
of the ozone standard (.08 ppmj in
Ogden and Provo, Ut^ih.
On February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202), EPA
revised the ozone standard from 0.08
ppm to 0.12 ppm. Thus, under 40 CFR
50.9, an area is considered attainment
when the expected njumber of days per
year with maximum Jiourly average
concentrations above 0.12 ppm is equal
to or less than one v^hen averaged over
the most recent three calendar years.
On February 3, 1981. EPA received
from the State of Utah an analysis of- the
ozone concentration^ in Ogden and
Provo, Utah. That analysis concluded
that both areas shouJd be redesignated
to attainment. EPA rjas examined the
data independently and agrees with the
State's conclusion that both areas are
attainment with resaect to the national
standard for ozone. fThe actual expected
exceedances at the
shown in the follow
.
wo stations are
ng table:
Measured r Expected exceedancesCXC£&d3nC6S
1878 1S79 151
9 0
_ 10
v
Moreover, due to th
0 1978 1979 1580 ~<g.
o 3.1 a o 1.0
1 1.6 0 12 09
e nature of the
federal-state relationship, federal
inquiry into the ecopomic
reasonableness of the state actions
would serve no practical purpose and
could well be improper. -*••
Under Executive
must judge whethei
"Major" and theref
requirement of a R<
Analysis. This regu
because it imposes
requirements. It on
approve requireme
State.
This notice of pr<
issued under the ai
of the Clean Air At
Drder 12291, EPA
a regulation is
re subject to the
gulatory Impact
ation is not Major
no new
/ proposes to
ts adopted by the
posed rulcmoking is
Ihority of Section 110
1 (42 USC 7410).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS OZONE CALCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
81 RFP REPORT
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS CALCULATION
OZONE
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY: 307 T/D RHC
MODIFIED ROLLBACK:
• DESIGN VALUE: • .20 ppm
STANDARD: .12 ppm
| BACKGROUND: .04 ppm
.12 - .04 _ .08 _ Rno/.20 - .04 " 716" " 5U/0
I
I
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS: 307 x 50% = 153 T/D
I
I
I CALCULATION FOR ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
CARBON MONOXIDE
1978 EMISSIONS INVENTORY: 1289 T/D
I ROLLBACK - ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS:
DESIGN VALUE: 11.25 opm g x 1289 T/D = 1030 T/D
NAAOS: 9 ppm ^'^
I
I
I
I
I
• APPENDIX E
I SERIES IV - SERIES V COMPARATIVE
EMISSIONS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY INDICATORS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SERIES IV- SERIES V
COMPARATIVE E-tlSSIONS ANALYSIS
ACTIVITY INDICATORS FOR SAN BIEGO COUNTY
1
ACTIVITY INDICATOR
Iwloysaent
1. Agriculture
_. Mineral Extraction
1. Aircraft, Ordance,.
Shipbuilding, Misc. Durables
™. Food and Kindred Products
•. Misc Non-Durables
6. Stone, Clay and Glass
|. Prinary and Fabricated Metals
»Railroad Transportation
„. Water Transportation
1). Lumber, Woods, Furniture
Fixtures
•L. Basics
ft. Total
|s. Total Population
• ..":
?4. IDA Trips
ft. IDA VMT
16. IDA VEHICLES
9. IDT TRIPS
B. LOT VMT
19. IDT Vehicles
§. MDV TRIPS
21. MOV \7-rr
1985
Series Iv
14,355
951
,30,250
4,264
1,183
1,991
6,389 -
400
428
1,873
212,700*
267 ,200
715,100*
769,600
2,032,400
4,156,109 •
31,643,390
1,119,688
370,545
3,533,581
128,166
240,353
2,237,805
S^--vIES V
11,587
1,053
32,335
5,860
1,294
1,322
5,466
200
376
2,237
222,600*
272,400
783,300*
835,100
2,082,900
4,510,618
32,C-15,158
1,104,817
534,320
3,574,670
126,463
249,289
2,255,958
**
ScRIES IV
14,564
1,077
32,514
4,302
1,496
2,571
7,142
400
465
2,294
254,900*
309,400
903,300*
957,800
2,460,100
5,484,089
43,565,651
1,499,897
442,691
4,378,186
154,800
363,403
3,567,410
1995
SERIES V '
11, 566
1,- 129
37,577
5,907
1,481
3,386 "
5,824
200
461
2 A ^Q"-_ P j y •- •
•256,500*
306,300
938,800*
988,600
2,473,500 ,
5,451,769.
41,794,500
1,424,131
440,082
4,200,192
146,979
361,262
3,422,373
. . . "T
. 1953*•*
Series IV Series V
,
22. MDVVehicles 81,942 SQ,S54
23. HDG Trips . 130,191. 135,051
24. KDG VMT 1,020,755 1,032,682
25. HDG Vehicles 26,862 27,176
26. HDD Trips 70,103 72,709
27. HDD \l-fi • 549,637 555,060
23. Motorcycle "VMT 274,818 275,030
25. Gasoline Consumption 837 846'
(Million Gallons/Year)
•
**Series IV shown here is referred to as Revised Series IVb
assessment.
.- ~~ '
-
1995 ' |** ' • 1
Series IV' Series V " '
1
126,653 120,255
1
171,791 170,-778 •
1,405,344 1,348,210
36,983 35,479 .|
92,503 -91,953 •
756,723 725,959 |
378,362 362,973 1
917 880
1
elsewhere in the comoarative
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RUBENSTEIN TO SOMMERVILLE LETTER,
I APRIL 1. 1981
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATS Of CAl!?O3N!A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
EDMUND G. BROWS' JR., <V«r.io.-
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
1102 Q STREET
P.O. EOX 7C15
SAC.V..'.\EN1O, CA 95312
April 1, 1981
Mr. R.J. Sommerville
Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District •
9150 Chesapeake Drive :
San Diego, CA 92123 -'•;'•
Dear Mr. Sommerville:
This is in response to your letter dated March 2, 1981,
concerning the motor vehicle emissions inventory and the benefits
associated with adopting an annual motor vehicle inspection program.
You riquEiSted the emission reduction estimates lor an inspection
program and the status of the Board's development of mobile source
control measures which could be included in the 1982 SIP revision.
As you probably know, the Board has scheduled a hearing
to consider adopting loaded mode emission standards for the change
of ownership inspection program in the South Coast Air Basin, In
order to support this effort, an extensive analysis was performed
to evaluate existing emission test data from in-use vehicles and
data from the current centralized program in Southern California.
The results of this analysis are discussed in the attached staff
report which was prepared for the hearing. In Table 5, the percentage
reductions for the existing idle test/underhood inspection program
are shown, to be 8.9 percent for hydrocarbons, 13.1 percent for
carbon monoxide, and 6.0 percent for oxides of nitrogen. If the
staff's recommendation for loaded mode standards is adopted, the
reductions for the respective pollutants will be 1.1.3 percent/"
15.8 percent and 9.4 per'cent. These estimates reflect the actual
failure rates at the inspection stations and the repair benefits
observed from in-use vehicles tested by ARB. The reductions are
percent reductions in the exhaust emissions from the fleet of vehicles
subject to inspection. They are based on the 1930 calendar year
fleet mix of vehicles inspected as part of the Southern California
program. In addition, the after repair reductions reflect correction
factors which take into account deterioration in emissions between
inspections.
The methodology used to calculate the benefit'; cited above
h.i? been validated, by EPA. In a draft memorandum on California
inspection and maintenance credits, EPA compared the reduction in
emissions immediately after repair observed by EPA in Portlanct to
tho reductions observed by ARB in the South Coast change-of-ovmership
pro'iram. The results were similar. EPA alt'o compared the instan-
tyneouf; emission reductions in MO3ILK 2 to AP.iV-. analysis in the
Mr. R.J. Sommerville -2-
MS-1 and MS-2 New Off-Road Heavy-Duty Farm and Construction Equipment
I
I
I"First Annual Report to the Legislature on the Mandatory Vehicle
Inspection Program". For the 1971 through 1979 vehicles that were,
examined, both analyses produced similar results. '• •
The difference between the ARB values cited above and the
final MOBILE 2 numbers is that EPA has developed an analysis which m
projects increased benefits with time. The analysis is partially I
based upon the projection methodology which EPA developed for future
three-way catalyst cars. While ARB believes that benefits could
increase with time, it is risky to use these projections at this I
time. Therefore, I recommend that you use the inspection and > •
maintenance percentage reductions in Table 5 of the attached report.
Even if you use these numbers, which are lower than EPA's, you run •
the risk of having to develop additional control measures if the |
Legislature fails to enact an -annual program. If you choose to use
the benefit numbers in MOBILE 2, I strongly recommend that you . —
develop control measures which could offset the large increase in I
emissions inventory which v;oulo. result if the Legislature; fails to
act or future ARE analyses confirm that the EPA numbers are too high.
The status of the mobile source control measures which the •
Board adopted in 1930 for further study is as follows:
I
Several workshops have been .held, with the heavy-duty ^
equipment and engine manufacturers. The primary topic for discussion •
was the emission inventory for this source category, however, several,
manufacturers have already initiated dialogue with ARB concerning
regulatory strategies. While rny staff is optimistic about regulations I
which could result for off-road equipment, the level of reduction •
obtainable is not yet clear, so I suggest that you use the emission
reduction estimates from March. An updated emission inventory (not •
reductions) should be available for this category in several months. ||
This entire effort is jeopardized by legislation which would prohibit
the ARB from adopting standards for farm equipment. _
MS-3 Lav;n and Garden Equipment (Utility) •
One workshop was held with the manufacturers of lawn and I
garden equipment to discuss emission inventory. At the workshop it I
was apparent that some members of the industry could not yet
contribute emission and population data to the emission inventory •
analysis, v:hile others were performing sophisticated tests to re- •
evaluate load-factor and usage estimates.. In order to provide
additional time for the industry to develop information which would _
be useful for ARB's regulatory analysis, the schedule was extended, •
and a second emission inventory workshop will be hold in July 1981. •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. R.J. Sommerville -3-
MS-4 and MS-5 Off-Road Motorcycles and Pleasure Craft (Boats)
'Mo activity has begun as yet.
MS-6 Anti-Tamper ing Regulations for On-IIighway Heavy-Duty Engines
These regulations have been adopted by our Board and take
effect in the 1982 model year.
MS-7 Electric Powered Vehicles and Stricter LDV Emission Standards
Studies in this area are ongoing.
MS-8 100,000 Mile Warranty for Passenger Cars
Although the 100,000 mile warranty has not been considered
by the Legislature, the ARB is currently negotiating with the auto
inanvifactii"r&rs' on s?~.CGT.C'.SC! durability.7 rs-riiiirciTO'Snts and wa"c.ccinh.los
These negotiations will be discussed at the May 1981 Board meeting.
MS-9 Inspection and Maintenance of Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Motorcycles
A research contract was funded to investigate the usage
and maintenance practices of the heavy-duty truck industry. The
research is currently in progress.
The two tables which are attached reflect the emission
inventory and emission reductions which should .be used for the 1982
SIP. These estimates were based upon the March 27, 1980 staff
report,• however, errors were corrected and the calculation methodology
for the reduction estimates was changed. As revisions to these
estimates become available, the local agencies will be notified.
If you have any questions, please contact Bob Cross at
(-213) 575-7044.
Sincerely,
Gary R.ubenstein
Deputy "Executive Officer
Attachment
AIR BASIN .
Bay Aria
North Central Coast
South Central Coast
South C:ast
San Die;,o
Sacrarr.er.to Valley
San Joaunn Valley
State Total
Table 5. !S->7 Projected Emissions (tons/day) Without Controls
MS-1 O.R.H.D. Non-Farm
HC
31. .1
CO
80.8
NOx
7.0
0.6
1.8
13.5
3.7
1.8
2.7
18.1
1.7
4.6
' 35.1
9.5
4.7
7.1
66.8
6.3
17.1
129
35.1
17.2
26.2
297.7
MS-2 Off-Road Farm
HC
0.5
1.4
1.5
0.4
0.2
5.5
29.5
CO
5.7
14.6
16.0
5.3
2.1
53.6
279
NOx
1.1
2.9
3.0
0.9
0.4
12.4
67.7
39 376 88.4
MS-3 Lawn,
Garden & '.'.erne Utility
HC
23.72
2.36
4.72
44.6
8.83
6.84
9.22
CO
223.0
22.3
44.4
419.3
83.0
62.2
86.7
NOx
2.54
0.25
0.51
4.73
0.95
0.73
0.9S
K5.7
AIR BAS:N
I Bay "Area
! North Central Coast
', South C^itral Coast
•\ South Const
... Sacrarr.er Lo Valley
'. San Joacuin Valley
MS-4 Off-Road Motorcycles
HC CO NOx
MS-5 Pleasure Craft
15.8
1.7
5.1
5G.7
11.4
6.1
27.3
3.0
8.7
87.2
19.6
10.4
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.3
0.07
0.04
9.6 16.5 0.07
HC
17.4
1.7
2.3
27.3
5.4
10.4
6.9
CO
72.0
7.1
9.8
113
22.3
42.4
29.4
NOx
3.5
0.4
0.5
5.5
1.1
1.9
1.5
MS-6 Anti-Tampering'
HC
29.1
3.3
5.8
54.1
10.9
12.3
17.6
CO
387.0
44.3
80.3
718.0
145.7
164.7
236.6
NOx
30.0
3.5
6.7
55.4
11.3
12.7
8.6
Sta'i Total 100.4 172.7 0.62 71.4 296 13.6 144.2 1936.4 151.2
Table 6. 1987 Projected Emissions Reduction (tons/day) Due to Toctic;
No'•':!!• Central Coast
South Central Coast
Do'jt'n Coast
Sji'i Diego
Si-ra-ento Valley
S;:P. Joaquin Valley
State Total
ASSUMPTIONS
Implementation Year
Ave-'ese Vehicle Emissions
-oduction (%}
/•vc-rage Veh.ic 1 e• Lifetime
3oy Area
Nc>-th Central Coast
Scjti Central Const
Sc-jti Cc?.st
Sv:n Die 00
S>:civ.!!K'iito Valley
San Joaquin Valley
State Total
ASSUMPTIONS
Implementation Year
Average Vehicle Emissions
Reduction (%)
Averaqe Vehicle lifetime
HC ' :
1.7
.16
.',6
3.45
.97
.47
.59
7. 4
HC
4.60/> /. T'r
1.3
14.8
3,4
1.8
2.8
30.7
MS-1
CO
4.67
' ./!4
1.18
9.03
2.48
1.22
1.79
22. 03
1984
75
10 Yrs.
MS -4
CO
8.00
.76
2.2
25.4
5.80
3,04
. 4.79
52.7
1985 •
50
3 Yrs.
NOx
17.1
1.65
4.40
33.1
9.16
'4.5
. 6.67
77.2
NOx
.03 .
-
-.09
.03 -- _
-- .
.15
HC
.07
.20
.24
.05
.03.
.89
5.1
6.59
HC
.96
..10
.14
1.52
.33
.60
.41
4.06
MS -2
CO .•
.33
2.1
2.6
.84
.32
. 8.7
.43.1
G3.8
1985
75
10 Yrs.
MS -5
CO
3.96
.39
.60
6.32
1.25
2.45
1.73
16.7
•1985
50
10 Yrs.
NOx .
.16
.42
' .50
.14
.06
2.0
11.7
20.1
NOx
.19
.02
.03
.31
.00 •.11
.03
.80
HC
2.5
.27
.54
4.7
1.0
.74
1.02
10.8
HC
0.3
0.03
0.06
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.4
Vs-"3' • o w
L • '
23.2
2 . 5
5.1
44.5
••> • *J
6.S
9.5
101
1985
50
10 Yrs.
KS-f; .
"CO""
23.2
2.7
4.31
43. ]
3 . /
9.9
14.2
116.2
1932
„
• -
'•Ox
.20
r. ~)
.06
.51-. •!. . i<i. p. - o
. 11
1 . 1 C
NOx'
-_
_
-
•
-
-
••'No NOx reduction benefits will be derived from presently proposed reg• ••'No NOx reduction benefits will be derived from presently proposed reg^lation^— •»• ggg '•• •• ••
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX G
• SOMMERVILLE TO LOCKETT LETTER,
• MARCH 17, 1980
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIAIl Of CAlllOUHIA laowN j«., cu..,.«.
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
1107 Q ST«tT
PO. *ox aati
SACRAMtmO, CA »fll*
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
R.J. Sommervilie
Air Pollution
Control Oldcvr
9150 Ch«upt«I.» Drive
i;au.C4lil.g2\21
blib VJOI (MS or/0)
Kirch 17, 1900 January 4, 1980
0"!
R. J. SommervllleAir Pollution Control Officer
San Diego A1r Pollution Control District
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego. CA 92123
Dear Mr. Sommervllle:
Subject: San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District's Revised State ImplementationPlan
This will acknowledge receipt of the data, justifications, and
references that you submitted to us to remedy dcficlencos EPAidentified In the San Diego County portion of the State
liuuliMiiuntatlan Plan.
Vte arc reviewing this material and will submit it to El'A if
determined to be appropriate.
Sincerely,
H. C. Lockctt. Chief
Regional Programs Division
cc: J. Boyd, ARB
J. Uise, EPA
R. Huff, CPQ
Thomas C. Austin
Executive OfficerAir Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
As you are aware, the staffs of AR3, EPA, CPO, and APCD met October 23, 1979,
to discuss EPA identified deficiencies in the revisions to the San Diego
Air Basin portion of the California State Implementation Plan. On October 30,
1979, the APCD submitted comments to EPA which reflected the District's
understanding of these discussions and the tentative agreements made toremedy the deficiencies.
Accordingly, the District agreed to submit the necessary materials to ARB
allo'/ing sufficient time to meet the proposed April 1, 1900 deadline fursubmit till to EPA. Attached are the appropriate data, justifications, and
refLTcnccs as required. Should you have any questions, please contact
Paul Sidhu (714) 565-3910.
Air Pollution Control Officer
RJS:GA:Jo
cc. G. Agid, ARB-Sacramento
D. Secord, ARB-E1 Monte
J. Uise, EPA Region IX
R. Huff. CPO
APPENDIX H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I AIR RESOURCES BOARD
• RESOLUTION 79-8
FEBRUARY 21, 1979
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c c
State of California '
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Resolution 79-8
February 21, 1979
WHEREAS, Section 39602 of the Health and Safety Code designates
the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) as the air pollution control agency
for all purposes set forth in federal law and designates the ARB as the
state agency responsible for the preparation of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) required by the Clean Air Act;
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 mandates the
revision of the SIP in designated nonattainment areas of the state in order
to assure the attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality
standards by new specified deadlines;
WHEREAS, San Diego County was designated nonattainment for.oxi_daivt,_'>
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter under provisions
of Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act;
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) and the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board (SDAPCB) were designated by
the ARB on February 15, 1978 as the local co-lead agencies for the preparation
of the 1979 nonattainment plan for San Diego County;
WHEREAS, the "San Diego Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy -
California State Implementation Plan Submittal" (San Diego Plan) was prepared
with the advice and guidance of the Policy Advisory Committee, Community
Resources Panel, arid Program Coordination Group established as part of the
cooperative Air Management Process in 1976;
WHEREAS, the San Diego Plan was reviewed by the city councils of
the cities of the region, the County Board of Supervisors, other interested
organizations, and the public;
WHEREAS, the San Diego Plan, was adopted by the CPO on October 16,
1978 and by the SDAPCB on October 18, 1978 to meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 'J977 after noticed hearing;
WHEREAS, the CPO and SDAPCB transmitted on October 31, 1978 the
San Diego Plan to the ARB for approval as a revision to the State Implementation
Plan;
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act and SIP regulations promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require that revisions to the SIP be
adopted after a public hearing for which 30 days notice to the public has
been provided;
tr I
I
j. WHEREAS, a public hearing upon 30 days notice and other adminis-
trative proceedings have been held in accordance with the Clean Air Act and •
the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (California Government |
Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5);
1. NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board accepts as
adequate and approves the San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board
(snapra) -csrr.lt-'.ents to adopt all RACt's (reasonably available control I
measures) needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable •
(except controls for marine lightering and residential gas-fired furnaces);
2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 'Board accepts the SDAPCB's |
commitment to adopt expeditiously rules for marine lightering and
residential gas-fired furnaces which are as effective as the rules
for these sources adopted by or for the South Coast Air Quality I
.Management District (SCAQMD) and approved by the Air Resources Board •
(ARB);
3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that to meet |
the Clean Air Act requirements for granting an extension for attaining
th*e national ozone and carbon monoxide standards, San Diego must commit
to an Inspection and Maintenance Program. The Board finds that the I
inclusion of Maximum Effort Inspection and Maintenance (Tactic M24) •
demonstrates initial local commitment to an adequate Inspection and
Maintenance Program, and the Board supports legislative authorization •
of such a program for the San Diego area-, |
4. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Executive
Officer to determine a) which of the vehicle-related emission I
control tactics in the San Diego plan, including Tactic P-9 (volatility I
of gasoline), should be accepted for inclusion in the SIP submission
for San' Diego as either attainment (-•fo^-imeleffleRtdt4efl-fW!'-4-or--to.-1.9S.Z.). •
or maintenance ^?e^-^fn^-ew6otAt.ioo--a-tta*-i98Z)- measures, and b) what •
emissions reductions should be attributed to each tactic. The Board
further directs the Executive Officer to amend the SIP submission in
accordance with his determination. The ARB staff will consult with •
the SDAPCB during this evaluation; 8
- 5. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that additional •
air quality and control strategy analyses are needed to comply with •
the Clean Air Act requirements for demonstrating the attainment and m
maintenance of the ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
participate matter standards, and that the following work should be •
completed by May 21, 1979; •
a. The SDAPCB and CPO must develop work plans, satisfactory «
to the ARB, to refine the ozone and carbon monoxide •
air quality analyses and control strategies such that ™
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(C tf
the attainment of the national standards no later
than December 31, 1987 will be demonstrated. The
Executive Officer is authorized to amend the SIP
submission for San Diego as necessary to include
the work plans.
b. The SDAPCB and CPO must develop work plans satis-
factory to the ARB, to refine the nitrogen dioxide
and particulate matter air quality analyses and
control strategies such that the attainment of
the national standards by December 31, 1982 will
be demonstrated. The Executive Officer is
authorized to amend the SIP submission for San
Diego as necessary to include the work plans.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the-Board agrees that the
measure C21 (further NOX controls for utility boilers and heaters)
should be further studied and directs staff to work with the SDAPCB
to study further this measure and the RACMs for stationary internal
combustion engines, electric utility gas turbines' and industrial
boilers for possible control of oxides of nitrogen;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board accepts as adequate
the SDAPCB commitment to adopt a rule equivalent to the ARB model
New Source Review (MSR) rule for the San Diego Aii* Basin;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) process equivalent to
that required by Section 172(b)(ll)(a) of the Clean Air Act relating
to industrial siting;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that to meet
Clean Air Act requirements for commitments by the appropriate agenices
to implement and enforce reasonably available control measures> the
CPO needs to submit to the ARB by Hay 21', 1979 for inclusion in the
San Diego plan resolutions by implementing agencies adopting and
committing to implement reasonably available transportation control
measures;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that to meet
Clean Air Act requirements related to granting of an extension for
attainment of the ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the
continuing planning and implementation program, the CPO needs to
refine further the transportation tactic evaluation and obtain
commitments to implement the reasonably available transportation control
measures outlined in Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act. To
demonstrate reasonable further progress'. CPO should submit to the
Board by May 21, 1979 a work plan which specifies and commits to
resources and schedules needed to complete the evaluation prior to
December 1981;
-4- :(
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that to meet I
the Clean Air Act requirements related to the granting of an •
extension for attainment of the ozone and carbon monoxide standards,
CPO needs to affirmatively consider and analyze in the continuing •
planning and implementation program, ambitious, alternative packages . |
of transportation control measures to achieve a determined emissions
reduction target or a percent emission reduction. The Board " _
recommends that these packages be directed toward maintaining per ' I
capita auto trips and vehicle miles traveled at today's levels. To •
demonstrate reasonable further progress, the CPO should submit to the
Board by May 21, 1979 a work plan which specifies how this task will •
be completed prior to December 1981 •, |
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that the
commitment to the further study of mobile source controls, stationary •
source controls, and transportation measures, as specified above, as »
well as other requirements of the continuing planning process^
demonstrates adequately compliance with Section 172(b)(ll)(C) of the •
Clean Air Act which requires the identification of other measures |
necessary to provide for attainment of the national standards for
ozone and carbon monoxide not later than December 31, 1987•,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that to meet •
the Clean Air Act requirements for allocation of emissions growth^
the CPO needs to commit to an analysis of alternative population •
distributions as part of the biennial growth forecast process in the J
continuing planning and implementation program. To demonstrate
reasonable further progress, the CPO should submit to the Board by
Hay 21, 1979 a commitment to and schedule for completing this I
analysis prior to December 1981; •
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED', that the Board finds that to meet •
the Clean Air Act requirements for consistency of the SIP and other |
planning programs, the CPO and local jurisdictions need to commit
to develop a well-defined process and schedules to bring the
regional and comprehensive plan/population forecasts and local general •
plans/population forecasts into initial and continuing consistency as •
part of the continuing planning and implementation program. To
demonstrate reasonable further progress, the CPO should submit to •
the Board by May 21, 1979 a commitment to and schedule for the J
development of this task;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that the San •
Diego plan does not include a mechanism for determining consistency |
of capital projects (e.g., highways and waste water facilities) with
the plan and that such determinations shall be made by the ARB on •
a project fay project basis. The Board directs the Executive Officer •
to develop, cooperatively with appropriate agencies, a mechanism for
determining project consistency;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C (•
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that the
San Diego plan does not demonstrate attainment of the national
standards for ozone and carbon monoxide by December 31, 1982
despite the implementation of all reasonably available control
measures;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that an
extension of the attainment date for the ozone and carbon monoxide
national standards until no later than December 31, 1987 is
justified;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board approves the
request of the local lead agencies for such an extension for
attainment of the ozone standard, and directs the Executive Officer
to amend the San Diego plan to request such an extension for
attainment of the carbon monoxide standard:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that an
extension of 18 months for the submission of a plan to attain the
national secondary standard for particulate matter is justified
and directs the Executive Officer to amend the plan to request
such an extension;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the
Executive Officer to report to the Board at its May 1*979 meeting
on the status of the local lead agency efforts to complete the
additional tasks identified in this resolution, and such other
SIP revisions as may be appropriate;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board finds that the
San Diego plan does not include an analysis of the effect of the
recent EPA action to adopt a 1-hour ozone standard as a revision
to the former 1-hour oxidant standard', and directs the Executive
Officer to amend the plan to include such an analysis;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that except as otherwise specified
above, the Board finds that the San Diego plan contains those
elements necessary to meet the presently applicable requirements
of Part D of the Clean Air Act as amended. The Board approves
those elements and directs the Executive Officer to submit the same
to EPA for approval, together with all acceptable technical
support documentation and such other elements in the San Diego plan
as may be useful in showing compliance with the requirements of
Part D.